Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC

“Unproved Documents Are Mere Ipse Dixit”, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, firmly reiterating the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and rejecting the insurer’s attempt to avoid liability by relying on unproved documents and allegations.

The Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the National Insurance Company against concurrent findings of the District Forum and the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission which had held the insurer liable to pay ₹4,60,000 along with interest and compensation for unjustified repudiation of a motor insurance claim. The repudiation was based on two main grounds: alleged intoxication of the driver and alleged invalidity of the driver’s licence at the time of the accident. Both allegations, however, fell apart under judicial scrutiny for want of proof in accordance with law.

"Ipse Dixit Without Proof Can't Defeat A Consumer's Claim" – Strict Standards for Evidence in Quasi-Judicial Consumer Fora

At the heart of the Commission’s rejection lay its categorical affirmation of the evidentiary standard under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Bench comprising AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, ruled that:

“Neither the Forensic Science Laboratory report, nor the medical certificate, nor police investigation report was proved by filing affidavits of the respective authors, as required in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Act. In the absence of providing such proof, reliance on unproved documents amounts to mere ipse dixit and cannot be sustained.”

The Court emphasized that quasi-judicial forums under the Consumer Protection Act are governed by principles of natural justice and evidence law, and that no document can be relied upon to establish controversial facts unless properly proved through affidavit or examination of its author.

Allegations of Drunken Driving and Invalid Licence Go Unproved

The case arose from the insurer’s repudiation of a motor insurance claim after the complainant’s insured taxi met with an accident on 21.12.2013. The insurance company contended that the driver was found with 98.33 mg% alcohol in his blood – above the statutory limit under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act – and that he lacked a valid and effective licence. However, the company failed to produce the authors of the FSL report, the medical certificate, the police challan, or the investigator’s report before the District Forum.

In fact, as recorded on 09.12.2015, counsel for the insurer expressly declined to lead any evidence by way of affidavit under Section 13(4). The NCDRC noted that:

“The OP consciously chose not to lead any evidence by way of Affidavits under Section 13(4)... Reliance on unproved documents cannot substitute legal proof. The burden of proof lay on the insurer, and it was not discharged.”

The insurer’s reliance on documents prepared in the course of criminal proceedings, including the police report under Section 173 CrPC, FSL report under Section 293 CrPC, and a medical certificate, was rejected as inadmissible in consumer fora without being duly proved.

Driver Was Legally Licensed to Drive LMV Transport Vehicle: Reliance on Mukund Dewangan Ruling

As to the allegation of invalid licence, the NCDRC upheld the finding of the State Commission that the driver, Tilak Raj, held a valid LMV licence, and the vehicle, with an unladen weight of 1540 kg, squarely fell within the LMV category under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

“It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a driver having licence to drive LMV could drive LMV transport vehicle also. See AIR 2017 SC 3668 titled Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.”

Thus, there was no breach of policy conditions in relation to driving licence.

Surveyor's Report Is Substantive Evidence: Insurance Company Cannot Disown Its Own Appointed Assessor

The Commission also rejected the insurer’s attempt to discredit the surveyor’s report which assessed the net loss at ₹4,60,000. It noted:

“The surveyor cum loss assessor was appointed by insurance company and insurance company cannot be allowed to disbelieve the report of its own surveyor. It is well settled law that the report of a surveyor is a substantive piece of evidence.”

Referring to H.C. Saxena v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2012 (1) CPJ 420 (NC) and other precedents, the Commission underlined that in absence of cogent contrary evidence, the insurer was bound by its own surveyor’s findings.

No Interference Warranted in Concurrent Findings: Revisional Power Not an Avenue for Reappreciation of Evidence

The NCDRC emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) and held that:

“The powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or acted with material irregularity, can interference be justified. This Commission cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions.”

The Court cited Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, and Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 to reaffirm this position.

Compensation and Interest Awarded Were Reasonable

Lastly, the Commission upheld the award of ₹10,000 as compensation and 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint, holding it neither excessive nor arbitrary, especially given the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the insurer’s failure to settle a legitimate claim.

The National Consumer Commission’s rejection of the insurer’s revision petition marks a robust reaffirmation of the procedural safeguards in consumer proceedings and the obligation of insurers to substantiate claims of policy breach through proper legal channels. The ruling sends a clear message that reliance on documents without proof will be viewed as “mere assertions without evidence”, and that consumer forums will not countenance such casual disregard of evidentiary discipline.

Date of Decision: 09 January 2026