State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 25 February, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 03.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2026
REVISION PETITION NO.19 OF 2021
(Against the final order dated 25.09.2019 in Appeal No.849/2019
of the State Commission, Karnataka)
WITH
NC/IA/236/2021 (Condonation of delay); NC/IA/235/2021 (Stay);
NC/IA/9026/2024 (Exemption from dim documents); NC/IA/11243/2022 (Condonation
of delay); NC/IA/4762/2024 (Condonation of delay)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi Legal Hub, RO.,
1st Floor, Core-3, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
New Delhi-110092
Through its Manager Legal. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Bangalore Central Division
K H Road, Shanthi Nagar
Bengaluru 560027
Rep. by its Divisional Controller. ... Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.77 OF 2021
(Against the final order dated 25.09.2019 in Appeal No.850/2019
of the State Commission, Karnataka)
WITH
NC/IA/660/2021 (Condonation of delay); NC/IA/659/2021 (Stay);
NC/IA/9027/2024 (Exemption from dim documents);
NC/IA/11244/2022 (Condonation of delay);
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi Legal Hub, RO.,
1st Floor, Core-3, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
New Delhi-110092
Through its Manager Legal. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Bangalore Central Division
K H Road, Shanthi Nagar
Bengaluru 560027
Rep. by its Divisional Controller. ... Respondent
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 1 of 12
REVISION PETITION NO.78 OF 2021
(Against the final order dated 25.09.2019 in Appeal No.851/2019
of the State Commission, Karnataka)
WITH
NC/IA/662/2021 (Condonation of delay); NC/IA/661/2021 (Stay);
NC/IA/9028/2024 (Exemption from dim documents);
NC/IA/11245/2022 (Condonation of delay);
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi Legal Hub, RO.,
1st Floor, Core-3, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
New Delhi-110092
Through its Manager Legal. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Bangalore Central Division
K H Road, Shanthi Nagar
Bengaluru 560027
Rep. by its Divisional Controller. ... Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.79 OF 2021
(Against the final order dated 25.09.2019 in Appeal No.852/2019
of the State Commission, Karnataka)
WITH
NC/IA/664/2021 (Condonation of delay); NC/IA/663/2021 (Stay);
NC/IA/9029/2024 (Exemption from dim documents);
NC/IA/11246/2022 (Condonation of delay);
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi Legal Hub, RO.,
1st Floor, Core-3, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
New Delhi-110092
Through its Manager Legal. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Bangalore Central Division
K H Road, Shanthi Nagar
Bengaluru 560027
Rep. by its Divisional Controller. ... Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.),
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms.Shuchi Singh, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent : Ms. T.S. Shanthi, Advocate (VC)
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 2 of 12
JUDGEMENT
AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd), MEMBER
1. By this common order, we shall dispose of Revision Petitions No. 19, 77, 78 and 79 of 2021 arising from a common order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangaluru ("State Commission") in F.A. Nos.849 to 852 of 2019, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bangalore Urban ("District Forum") order dated 25.10.2016 in Complaint Nos. 518 to 521 of 2016 respectively.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the original complaint before the District Forum.
3. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
4. The complainant is a State Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, for providing public passenger transport services in the State of Karnataka. The complainant functions on a "no profit, no loss" basis and renders essential public services. It owns and operates a fleet of buses for public transportation purposes. One such Corona Bus bearing Registration No. KA-40 F-833, owned by the Corporation, was insured under comprehensive insurance policy No. 67210031120100003550 issued by the Opposite Party (OP). The policy was valid from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014, for which premium of Rs.72,570 along with an additional premium of Rs.19,447 towards third-party coverage including crew/employees was paid by the Complainant to the OP. The said bus met with a road traffic accident on 28.06.2013 at Neeraloor Gate, Attibele, Bengaluru, while proceeding RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 3 of 12 from Bengaluru to Tiruchirappalli. In the said accident, the driver, Sri MR Ramesh, sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Manipal Hospital for treatment. The Complainant incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.12,62,890, which was reimbursed to the driver. An FIR was registered on the same day vide Crime No.188/2013. A claim for reimbursement was submitted to OP on 20.02.2014 with all necessary documents. However, OP failed to indemnify the said amount. Also, Volvo Bus Regn No.KA-01 F-8514, owned by them was insured under comprehensive policy No. 67210031120100003652 from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014. OP collected premium of Rs.68,166 along with an additional premium of Rs.24,235 towards third-party coverage including crew/ employees. The said bus met with an accident on 02.08.2013 at Panchal Village near Tiruvannamalai, TN, while proceeding from Bengaluru to Neyveli. The driver, Sri Mari Gowda, sustained grievous injuries and was treated at St. John's Hospital, Bengaluru, incurring medical expenses of Rs.23,544. An FIR was registered in Crime No.116/2013. Despite submission of all documents and claim forms, the OP failed to reimburse the due. Consequently, a legal notice dated 18.11.2015 was issued. With OP failing to take requisite action, they approached the District Forum. Further, Corona Bus Registration No.KA-40 F-815 insured under comprehensive policy No. 67210031120100003545 from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014, for which premium of Rs.72,570 and additional premium of Rs.19,447 was paid towards third-party coverage including employees/ crew had met with an accident on 30.03.2013 at Penukonda, AP while proceeding from Bengaluru to Hyderabad. The driver, Smt. P. Renuka, sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, incurring medical expenses amounting to Rs.5,22,144, which was reimbursed by them. An FIR was registered in Crime No.35/2013. Despite submission of the claim with all supporting documents and issue RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 4 of 12 of legal notice dated 18.11.2015, the OP failed to reimburse the amount. Also, Volvo Bus Registration No. KA-01 F-9202 was insured under comprehensive policy No. 67210031120100003573 from 30.03.2013 to 29.03.2014. The OP collected a premium of Rs.1,14,926 along with an additional premium of Rs.26,230 towards third-party coverage including crew/employees. This bus had met with an accident on 17.06.2013 near Hotel Windsor Manor, Bengaluru, while proceeding from Bengaluru to Secunderabad. The driver, Sri K Ramaswamy sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Lalitha Health Care Pvt Ltd/Fortis Network Hospital, Bengaluru, incurring medical expenses of Rs.21,730. An FIR was filed with High Grounds Traffic Police in Crime No.30/2013. A claim was submitted on 06.05.2014 along with all necessary documents, but OP failed to indemnify the claim. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed four complaints being CC Nos.518 to 521 of 2016 before the District Forum.
5. Upon issuance of notice, the OP entered appearance through counsel and sought time to file its written version. However, despite sufficient opportunity, OP failed to file its written version. Consequently, the matters were posted for complainant's evidence. The complainant Corporation adduced its evidence by way of affidavit in all four cases. The District Forum, vide detailed order dated 25.10.2016, allowed all four complaints. Relevant extracts of the operative portion are as follows:
" Order The complaints filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are allowed in part. The OP in complaint No.518/2016 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,62,890/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty-two Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only) to the complainant Corporation together with interest @ 12% p.a from 20.02.2014. The OP in complaint No.519/2016 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.23,544/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-four Only) to the complainant Corporation together with interest @ 12% p.a from 05.05.2014.RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 5 of 12
The OP in complaint No.520/2016 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,22,144/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty-two Thousand One Hundred and Forty-four Only) to the complainant Corporation together with interest @ 12% p.a from 10.05.2014.
The OP in complaint No.521/2016 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,730/- (Rupees Twenty one Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Only) to the complainant Corporation together with interest @ 12% p.a from 06.05.2014.
The OP shall pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant Corporation in each of these four cases. The OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within four weeks from the date of communication.
Send the copy of the order to both the parties free of costs. This original order shall be kept in complaint No.518/2016 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected files."
6. Aggrieved, OP filed Appeal Nos. 849 to 852 of 2017 before the State Commission. These were dismissed by a common order dated 25.09.2019, affirming the District Forum's findings. Relevant extracts of the operative portion are as follows -
"09. Heard the arguments.
10. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that respective Complaints filed by the KSRTC is not maintainable before the District Forum, since, the Employees of KSRTC should file their respective Complaints against the KSRTC for claiming medical reimbursement. Further Appellant submitted that it cannot indemnify the Policy assured amount towards Claim of the Respondents in respect of medical expenditure incurred by the respective Drivers of the Respondents.
11. Perused the Orders & Records. District Forum ordered for payment of Compensation towards medical reimbursement at the instance of Employees/Workers of KSRTC. The contention taken by the Appellant that Respondent has taken Comprehensive Policy and Claims with regard to medical expenses incurred by their respective Drivers cannot be honoured is not correct and cannot escape from his liability. However, the Employer has obtained Comprehensive Policy RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 6 of 12 covering risks towards their employees, while they are on duty, for which purpose only he has paid the Insurance Premiums and in all the 4 cases, it is observed that the accidents have occurred while the Drivers were on their duty and rightly the Employer has obtained the individual Comprehensive Policy and forwarded only for reimbursement of hospitalisation/ treatment expenses. The contention of the Appellant that they are right in repudiating the claims for reimbursement of expenses on the ground that the Employer who has obtained the Comprehensive Policy only should claim and not the effected persons, then, obviously they should not have accepted the premiums remitted by the Employer and should have insisted for individual remittance of premiums by each of the employees. Not having done so, the Appellant is duty bound to settle the individual claims received from the Employer on behalf of its employees who have met with an accidents, while they were on duty, who are all covered in the Comprehensive Policy obtained by it. Further the negative attitude of Govt. entities like this Appellant collecting premium towards Policies and when genuine claims received for reimbursement of expenses, shirk their moral obligations on flimsy, unreasonable & unrealistic grounds. Rather they should have taken positive attitude & approach towards its Policy holders and join hands with them in reducing the hardships being encountered by the staff of essential Public Utility services. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned Order is just & proper and there is no scope for interference. Hence, the following ORDER The Appeal Nos.849/2017 to 852/2017 are dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost in these Appeals. Amount in deposit in all these Appeals shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement to the respective Complainants.
Keep the original of this Order in Appeal No.849/2017 and the copies thereof in rest of the Appeals."
7. Dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of both the lower fora, OP (Petitioner herein) has filed the present Revision Petitions, seeking to set aside the impugned orders.
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 7 of 128. The learned counsel for Petitioner/OP argued that the pleadings, replies, appeals, and annexures, including the surveyor reports filed before the Fora below, may be read as part and parcel of the present revision petitions. She asserted that the instant Revision Petitions assail the common impugned order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the State Commission in FA Nos. 849, 850, 851, and 852 of 2017, whereby the Appeals filed by the OP were dismissed in complete disregard of settled principles of law. The State Commission failed to apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v Consumer Protection Council (1995)2 SCC 479 and Bharti Knitting Co v DHL Worldwide Courier, (1996) 4 SCC 704 and further acted in violation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It is further submitted that the Fora below exceeded their jurisdiction by virtually rewriting the insurance contract and erroneously construing the Motor Package Policy as medical reimbursement policy for paid drivers. This approach ignores the settled legal position that claims arising out of injuries sustained by paid drivers fall exclusively within the ambit of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the consumer fora in view of Section 19 thereof. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that KSRTC does not qualify as a "consumer" insofar as claims relating to injuries suffered by its paid drivers are concerned. Additionally, the alleged claims were belated, contrived, and unsupported by policy terms, and any liability, if at all, was strictly limited to the contractual and statutory coverage under the policy. Accordingly, the impugned order is vitiated by patent illegality and jurisdictional error and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. He relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagro & Ors., Vol. 3 CLR 106 (H.P. High Court); and GA Narsimha Raju v. National Insurance Co Ltd 2007 ACJ 1025 (SC) in support of his arguments.
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 8 of 129. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent-Complainant supported the concurrent findings in the matter and sought dismissal of the Revision Petition, contending that the Respondent, a State Transport Corporation, obtained comprehensive insurance policies covering the Buses as well as the drivers and crew by paying additional premium. The claim arising out of the road accident dated 28.06.2013, in which their employees suffered grievous injuries is undisputed. It is also undisputed that the medical expenses incurred were reimbursed by the Respondent and the claim was made to the extent of reimbursement. The OP Insurer failed to settle the claim and did not even repudiate claim. Further, despite service of legal notice, no response was given by the OP. The OP also failed to file written version before the District Forum. At this stage, the Petitioner raised vague and unsupported pleas of repudiation, maintainability and limitation, for the first time, without even disclosing whether the claim was repudiated. She asserted that the dispute emerged squarely out of gross deficiency of service with respect to terms of the comprehensive policies in question covering the accidental injuries. The claim made was merely the amounts actually reimbursed by it to the injured employees. Therefore, the Complainants have right to assert their claim under the Consumer Protection Act and have no obligation to make claim under the Employees' Compensation Act.
10. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents paced on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.
11. The principal issue for consideration in these Revision Petitions is whether the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission suffer from any material irregularity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 9 of 1212. It is undisputed that the Complainant Corporation and the OP Insurer have entered into the instant comprehensive insurance policies and paid the requisite premiums. It is also not in dispute that the said accidents occasioned and the employees of the Complainant who were driving the Buses suffered injuries. They were treated and undisputedly the expenses for treatment was reimbursed by the Complainant and preferred the claim under the policies to the OP. The OP Insurer failed to settle the claim and did not even file the claim repudiation. On the complaint being filed, the right of the OP to file written version was closed due to delay. The learned District Forum as well as the learned State Commission have gone into detailed evaluation of the pleadings and passed detailed and well reasoned orders. The contention of the Petitioner that such claims fall exclusively within the domain of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is misconceived. The present complaints arise out of a contract of insurance and allege deficiency in service on account of failure to indemnify under the policy terms, thereby squarely attracting the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The Complainant having engaged the OP insurance services for consideration, clearly falls within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. The judgments relied upon by the OP are distinguishable on facts and do not advance its case. It is also significant that the Petitioner failed to file written version and thus the right to file the same was closed before the District Forum. The OP sought to raise the same indirectly at this stage and citing technical and contractual objections, without substantiating the same by any contemporaneous record, including proof of repudiation or limitation. It is settled law that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 (now Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act) is limited and can be invoked only when the lower fora acted beyond jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or committed material irregularity.
RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 10 of 1213. In such cases of concurrent findings, he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has clarified that revisional powers are not meant to re- appreciate facts or evidence. Similarly, in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, vide Order dated 21.01.2022 the Apex Court held that :-
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in- depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
14. Also, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 11 of 12
15. In view of the foregoing and after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, we find no reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned orders of the learned District Forum dated 25.10.2016 and the learned State Commission dated 25.09.2019. Revision Petitions No.19, 77, 78 and 79 of 2021 are, therefore, dismissed.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
17. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
............................................................ (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.) MEMBER /bs RPs 19, 77, 78, 79 OF 2021 Page 12 of 12