IMPORTANT POINT
Certificate given by authorised dealer cannot be completely overlooked.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 01.11.2006 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 128 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainants and directed the Insurance Company (petitioner before us) to pay to the appellants/complainants the sum of Rs.1,18,240/- minus the amount already paid, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the insurance claim, i.e., 25.03.2004 till payment, in addition to the cost of Rs.2,000/-.

2. Respondents in this case were the complainants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi (in short, ‘the District Form’), alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party (OP)/Insurance Company on the ground that the latter had repudiated their claim for indemnification of the loss to their insured vehicle, which met with an accident on 02.12.2003 during the period of validity of the insurance policy (29.03.2003 – 28.03.2004). The vehicle was insured for the sum of Rs.2.30 lakh. The accident was reported to the police and the First Information Report was registered on 03.12.2003. The OP was also informed about the accident. The OP deputed a spot surveyor who submitted his report after inspection of the damaged vehicle. Later, the vehicle was removed from the place of accident with the help of a recovery van and brought to the premises of M/s G.S. Motors, authorised dealers of the manufacturers of the vehicle at Gutkar. The complainants submitted their insurance claim along with necessary documents on 22.12.2003 and the OP appointed a final surveyor to assess the loss. After delaying the matter considerably, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver (Manoj Kumar) of the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle, which was registered as a transport vehicle. This led the insured to file the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The OP contested the complaint stating that though the final surveyor had inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.36,101.70, the claim was not payable and hence repudiated because the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident held a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) though the insured vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle for public (goods) transport and hence one of the essential the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated, rendering the claim not payable.

3. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum held that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident was authorised to drive LMV (non-transport) vehicle and the vehicle involved in the accident was insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle. However, the District Forum also held that there was no evidence that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being used for carrying any goods. On the other hand, it was the contention of the complainants that the driver was driving the vehicle to go to this village to see his wife, who was to deliver their child. The District Forum also found that the OP had not led any contrary evidence to show that at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying any goods on payment of charges therefor by someone. On these considerations and relying on certain judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Commission, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay Rs.36,200/- to the complainants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, viz., 25.03.2004 till realisation and cost of Rs.2,000/-. It was this order that was challenged by the complainants before the State Commission, leading to the order impugned in this revision petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned counsel for the petiti