1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.655 of 2025 Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Bijesh Kumar ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the respondents : Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.` Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 14.08.2025, whereby the order as passed by the H.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Shimla dated 07.11.2024 and the order as passed by the learned District Consumer, Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, H.P. dated 09.11.2023 have been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was averred that 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 complainant had purchased JCB 3DX Excavator bearing registration No.HP33E 5365 for earning his livelihood by way of self employment . The said JCB machine was insured with the opposite party under the comprehensive Insurance Policy for a period commencing from 13.09.2021 to 12.09.2022 and the same was financed with Kotak Mahindra Bank . During the subsistence of above insurance policy on 18.01.2022 when the above machine was engaged by HPPWD department for clearing the road at place Grahon Nala, near Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. then suddenly above said machine fell into a deep gorge due to skidding over the snow on road. 3. It has been averred that due to accident, heavy loss was caused to the machine of complainant. The complaint was lodged with the concerned police and police lodged FIR No. 10 dated 28.01.2022. The said accident was immediately intimated to the opposite party and they had assured that the claim of complainant shall be settled very soon. At the time of the accident the insured declared value of above machine at the rate of Rs. 15,00,000/- The opposite party had assured the complainant to settle the own damage claim of machine in accordance with the insured declared value of the machine. Though, various requests were made to the opposite party,however no steps were taken for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant. 3 4. As per complainant the opposite party assessed the value of scrap of machine @ Rs.3,00,000/- with papers and Rs. 2,00,000/- without papers and cleverly with dishonest intention to deprive the complainant from own damage claim compelled the complainant to give his consent by way of affidavit to settle the own damage on lessor amount of Rs.9,47,660/- with RC and Rs. 10,47,660/- without RC. But complainant has not given his consent at such a lessor amount, as opposite party wanted to usurp the value of scrap of machine, which was got assessed by opposite party to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- with RC and Rs.2,00,000/- without RC, whereas insured declared value of machine was Rs.15,00,000/-. Complainant as requested opposite party to pay the entire own damage claim of Rs.15,00,000/- and to take away the scrap of vehicle, but thereafter opposite party neither settled the own damage claim nor repudiated the same, though sufficient time of about 11 months expired. Therefore, it was prayed that there is not only deficiency in service but it is also a gross unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant has not only suffered monetary loss of Rs.15,00,000/- but has also been burdened with heavy rate of interest for non payment on account of non-settlement of own damage claim within time. Therefore, it was prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as 4 own damage claim alongwith interest @ 12% P.A from the date of accident i.e 18.01.2022 till the making of the final payment. It was further prayed that opposite party be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 500,000/-, to the complainant. 5. The complaint as filed by the present respondent was contested by filing a detailed reply, wherein, it was averred that the investigation was conducted by the opposite party and it came to the knowledge that JCB bearing No HP33 E-5365 on 18.01.2022 met with an accident at Shaminallah and at the relevant time, seven persons including driver were travelling in JCB. It was further averred that sitting capacity of JCB is one i.e for driver and 6 other person were gratuitous passengers in excavator more than its seating capacity. The Insured plied the JCB in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the complaint, as instituted, is not maintainable. 6. It was further stated that the FIR is manipulated by the complainant in connivance with the police and not recorded on the true facts. It was further submitted that facts of the accident and cause of accident have been changed with the active connivance of police. At the time of accident 7 persons including driver were sitting in the JCB whereas the seating capacity of JCB is one. It was further averred that the 5 opposite party has got assessed the losses of excavator on the salvage basis without RC through independent Surveyor namely Sh. Vishal Kumar Gautam, who assessed the loss of excavator @ Rs 11,22,660/- 7. All the averments as made in the complaint were refuted by the present petitioner. 8. The learned District Consumer Redressal Commission, Mandi vide its order dated 09.11.2023 after holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,22,660/- to the complainant on the net of salvage basis without RC in respect of vehicle in question alongwith interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment/deposit. Further the opposite party was also directed to pay special damages to the tune of Rs. 6000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, on 03.02.2024. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla vide its order dated 07.11.2024 affirmed the order as passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Mandi and dismissed the appeal as filed by the present petitioner. 6 10. Still feeling aggrieved the present petitioner filed second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission,New Delhi. The learned National Commission vide its order dated 14.08.2025, affirmed the orders/findings as returned by the Tribunals below and dismissed the second appeal as preferred by the petitioner. 11. Now, the petitioner/Insurance Company has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the passing of the orders as passed by the three authorities. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders as passed by the Tribunals below are erroneous and liable to be quashed and set-aside. She further submits that the learned Tribunals below have not appreciated the point in controversy and have wrongly allowed the complaint as filed by the respondent. 13. On the other hand the impugned orders have been defended by Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocate. She submits that impugned orders are sustainable in the eyes of law and there is no infirmity in the same. She further submits that as per the mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court the scope of interference in these proceedings are very limited and narrow . Consequently, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file. 15. Admittedly the respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the ground that he purchased the JCB machine bearing registration No. HP33E-5365Model 2018 for his earning lively hood. It has been averred in the complaint the said machine was insured with the opposite party under comprehensive Insurance Policy for a period w.e.f from 13.09.2021 to 12.09.2022. It is a case of the complainant that on 18.01.2022 when the said machine was engaged by HPPWD department for clearing the road at place Grahon Nala, near Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. then suddenly above said machine fell into a deep gorge due to skidding over the snow on road, as a result of which complaint was lodged with the Police and FIR bearing No. 10 dated 28.01.2022 was lodged. At the time of the accident the opposite party assured to grant a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant, however, despite making several requests they failed to do so. It is a case of the complainant-respondent that the act and conduct of the opposite party not only amounts to deficiency in service but is also a gross unfair trade practice, due to which not only monetary loss of Rs.15,00,000/ has been sustained by the complainant but he has also been burdened with heavy rate 8 of interest for non-payment of loan amount on account of loan settlement of own damage. 16. The contention and the defence as raised by the present petitioner is that at the time when JCB machine bearing registration No. HP33E-536 met with an accident on 18.01.2022, at the relevant time seven persons including driver were travelling in JCB whereas, sitting capacity of JCB was one. It is case of the petitioner that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the claim as put forward by the respondent is not sustainable. 17. The copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 which falsifies the case of the present petitioner. The FIR which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 shows that on the basis of the statement of Ram Singh, he along with Tara Singh, Bhimo Ram, Pyar Dassi and Penu Ram were working under the Public Works Department and the JCB bearing registration No. HP33E-5365 was hired for carrying out construction activities. The said JCB was being driven by Operator Hom Raj and Dabe Ram Supervisor was sitting in the said JCB. At 12.30 p.m. in the afternoon all of a sudden JCB fell down in a deep gorge, as a result of which the operator of the vehicle Hom Raj could not control the same and sustained serious injuries. On account of skidding of the JCB, the other persons present on the spot i.e Pyardassi, Dabe Ram, Bhimi 9 Ram and all other persons present on the spot sustained injuries. The FIR reveals that, at the relevant time, only the driver and operator of JCB were sitting in the JCB and the stand which is being projected by the petitioner that seven persons were sitting in the same is falsified. Therefore, the stand which is being taken by the petitioner that there is a breach of policy since JCB was being occupied by seven persons, does not hold good and that the findings by the three Tribunals below are sustainable. 18. The learned Tribunals below have thrashed the entire controversy in its real prospective and has rightly came to the conclusion that on account of deficiency of service, the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant is liable to be allowed. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the scope of interference while dealing with the Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in various cases. 20. The Apex Court in SHRI DIGANT vs. M/s P.D.T Trading Co. & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.13801 of 2025 has held that the scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. The Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they 10 may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in inappropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when(i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 21. Similarly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chan Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 has held that the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts upon which determination under challenge is based ----Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when final finding is justified or can be supported - High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of inferior court or tribunal - Power under Art. 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or finding is so 11 perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that court or tribunal has come to the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior 21.courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 22. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another (2003) 3 Supreme court Cases 524 has held as under: 7. “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, 12 the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 23. Lastly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sugarbai M. Siddiq and others vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (dead) by LRs. (2001) 8 SCC 477 has held as under: “6. There can be little doubt that in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to see whether the lower courts/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity; in other words, the court is concerned not with decision but with decision making process. On this ground alone the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.” 24. The aforesaid exposition of law, has laid down that the scope of interference by the High court is very limited and narrow. In the present case three Tribunals below have determined the point in controversy rightly by taking into consideration the entire material facts including the documents and rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent-complainant suffered on account of acts of the petitioner i.e deficiency of service, therefore, the order was passed for the payment of Rs. 11,22,660/- to the 13 complainant/respondent on the net of salvage basis without RC in respect of JCB machine bearing registration No. HP33E- 5365 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment/deposit. 25. No other point raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunals below have not committed any jurisdictional error, therefore, this Court will not interfere in the well-reasoned findings as recorded by them. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 19.05.2026 (veena)