1 2025:CGHC:60148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6169 of 2025 1 - Smt. Reena Bai Nishad W/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal Nishad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ward No. 5, Arjunda, Tahsil Dondilohara District- Balod Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Maryadit Bank Through Branch Manager, Branch Dondilohara, Tahsil Dondilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Claim Manager, Address 10th Floor, A Wing Peninsula Business Park Bhapat Marg, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400013 Branch Office Address Shyam Plaza A-1 B, Second Floor, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the passing of impugned common order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned National Commission in Revision Petition No.2392/2017 (Annexure P-1). BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.15 11:41:49 +0530 2 (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned common order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2392/2017 (Annexure P-1). (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of petitioner was having saving bank account with respondent No.1/Bank. Petitioner from his account has paid premium of Rs.65/- for issuance of group personal accident policy, which was issued to him making it effective from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015. Under the policy, risk of policy holder against his death was covered upto Rs.5.00 Lakhs. On 16.06.2014, when insured was travelling on scooty, an unknown vehicle dashed his scooty and caused accident near Dhiraj Rice Mill at Village Kuthrail and ran away. In the accident, insured succumbed to the injuries during treatment. When claim submitted by petitioner/nominee was not considered, petitioner submitted an application U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg. 3. Complaint made by petitioner was dismissed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg observing that insured was not possessed with license to drive the scooty. Appeal preferred against the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg also came to be dismissed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur vide order dated 17.05.2017. Against the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur, petitioner has filed Revision Petition No.2392 of 3 2017, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (In short “NCDRC”), New Delhi, which also came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 21.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that learned NCDRC failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, facts and evidence brought in record by the parties before the District Dispute Redressal Forum. He also contended that NCDRC erred in dismissing the claim of petitioner in toto without properly appreciating the fact that accidental death was covered under the insurance policy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 6. NCDRC in Para-13 of the order impugned has considered the part of insurance terms and conditions under Part-III General Exclusion, which reads as under :- "PART III GENERAL EXCLUSION PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT the Company shall not be liable under this Policy for 1…. 2…. 3. Any claim of the Insured Person. (1)….. (ii)….. (Tii)….. (iv)….. (V)…. (vi) driving any vehicle without a valid driving licence." 7. The general exclusion under the policy as extracted in the impugned order is not disputed or controverted by the counsel for petitioner. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Consumer 4 Dispute Redressal Forum and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 8. In the proceeding of the writ petition this Court has very limited jurisdiction. This Court can interfere in the order passed by the NCDRC only when petitioner makes out a case that the order passed is perverse to the evidence available. Petitioner could not able to make out aforementioned two grounds nor it is specifically pleaded. NCDRC while dismissing the revision has taken note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 and in case of Narendran Sons V. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to admit this petition, which is filed against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as also by the NCDRC. 10. For the foregoing discussions, this petition has no merit, is liable to be and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram