IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of deficiency of service by both the Fora below regarding settlement of claim, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

Challenge in this Revision Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”) is to the order dated 30.04.2015 in FA No. 377 of 2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission.”)

2. By the impugned order, the State Commission while affirming the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short “the District Forum”) has modified the order of the District forum by reducing the amount from Rs.11,31,826/- to Rs.10,93,421/- confirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum.

3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant has purchased a truck of TATA Model LPS in the month of March, 2012 and got the same insured with the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company”) for the period 21.03.2012 to 20.03.2013. It was averred that the Complainant had purchased the said vehicle for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. It was stated that the Complainant applied in the office of DTO, Bathinda for registration of the subject vehicle and the DTO issued the Registration Certificate and allotted Registration No. PB-03-AA-8477. On 30.03.2012, the Motor Vehicle Inspector also gave a fitness certificate. The Complainant applied for goods carriage permit and deposited the tax and permit fee and other expenses in time. The RTA, Bathinda issued the permit of the said vehicle in the name of the Complainant which was going to expire on 11.04.2007. The Complainant appointed Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh as driver of the subject truck as he had a valid heavy driving licence and is entitled to drive the said vehicle.

4. It was averred that the Complainant had directed the driver on 10.04.2012 to go to Pathankot and to bring the crusher, on his directions, the driver went to Pathankot, purchased the crusher, left on 10 p.m. Around 3 a.m. on 11.04.2012, when the subject truck reached near Jeera Town some animals came from the right side. The driver, while trying to save the animals, turned the steering to the left side and also tried to stop the vehicle by applying the brakes but unfortunately truck over-turned in a khud after hitting the trees. The driver reported the accident to the Complainant at around 5 a.m. and the Complainant immediately rushed to the place of the incident and informed the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed who inspected the damage and prepared a list of all the damaged parts.

5. It was averred that the Complainant had requested the officer of the Insurance Company to assess on total loss basis as the vehicle has been totally damaged and was in such a condition that even after repair it would not be able to function properly. But the Insurance Company pressurized the Complainant to get the vehicle repaired and assured that all the repair bills would be cleared by them. On such an assurance, the Complainant got the vehicle repaired from five workshops at Bathinda. The engine parts + cabin + chassis were got repaired from the Company namely Gobind Motors who are the authorized dealers of Tata Motors Limited. It was pleaded that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,37,578/- in cash to the Gobind Motors against the bill dated 24.04.2012. It was averred that the Complainant paid a total amount of Rs.11,31,826 to different workshops namely Rs.13,300/- to Surjeet Repair Works, Rs.3,55,710/- to M/s JGR Fabricators, Rs.15038/- to Kohinoor Lubricants, Rs.10200/- to Mohan Singh Body Maker.

6. It was further averred that the Complainant had taken a loan to purchase the subject vehicle and was paying instalments of Rs.58,500/- per month to the Finance Company and has borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from near and dear and the delay by the Insurance Company in the settlement of the claim was causing loss of Rs.3,000/- per day. Despite several requests, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking