IMPORTANT POINT
A litigant must be vigilant in pursuing his case.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.08.2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 204 of 2013.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that petitioner purchased a bus Ashoka Leyland model 2001 to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment. The petitioner engaged one Vidya Rattan for driving the bus who was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The petitioner had taken the road test and further confirmed the genuineness of the driving licence of Vidya Rattan.

3. The petitioner got the aforesaid bus bearing no. PB 13 X 9577, chasis no. YLA 032896 and Engine no. ZLH 167167 comprehensively insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., i.e., vide policy no. 233500/31/2011/5228 for the period 13.01.2011 to 12.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh. The said bus met with an accident on 28.06.2011 near village Gajewas on Saman Bhawanigarh road and in the accident the bus was badly damaged. An FIR regarding the accident was lodged by one Hardip Singh who failed to report the actual facts of the accident. The loss of the bus was estimated at Rs.3,49,761/-. The petitioner reported the matter to the respondent/ insurance company, who deputed a surveyor for the spot and final survey. The petitioner completed all the formalities as desired by the respondent/ insurance company. But the surveyor failed to assess the loss fairly and adequately. The petitioner visited the office of the respondent in connection with the settlement of the claim but the respondent lingered the matter under one pretext or the other. The petitioner repaired the said bus by spending money from his pocket so as to earn his livelihood.

4. The petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 27.03.2013 from the respondent with the remarks that the route permit was not valid on the route and the engine number was punched. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner visited the office of the respondent and explained that the route permit was valid and it was the same bus which was got insured by him and no punching was there on the engine number but the respondent failed to pay any heed to its request. Describing the act of the respondent in not having settled the claim to be a deficiency in service which resulted into harassment and mental agony, the petitioner approached the District Forum through the present complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986, for a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.3.00 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident; to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

5. On notice, the respondent filed their written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable since the petitioner is running the bus for commercial activity. It was admitted that the petitioner had got the bus insured with the respondent. However, it was alleged that the particulars regarding the date of the purchase and first date of registration made by the first owner of the vehicle have not been disclosed in the registration certificate of the vehicle supplied by the petitioner. The route permit was also not valid as per the route of the journey. The employment of Vidya Rattan as driver was denied by the respondent as the petitioner had never informed the respondent regarding his employment as the driver of the bus. It was denied if the driving licence of Vidya Rattan son of Bhagwan Singh was presented before the respondent at the time of getting the insurance of the bus.

6. On receipt of the intimation regarding the accident, the respondent appointed Shri Chander Shekhar Chanun, surveyor and loss assessor to investigate and assess the loss of the vehicle. The investigator found that the chassis and the engine number on the plate of the manufacturer had been punched over the o