The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court relied on the evidence to determine the purpose of vehicle use and found that the affidavit denying commercial use was an afterthought and not supported by any documents, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

ORDER

Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member - The car of the revision petitioner (complainant before the District Forum), was insured with the respondent/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with effect from 24.9.2007. It met with an accident on 30.6.2008. The claim of the Complainant under the policy was repudiated by the insurer on 29.5.2009. The consumer complaint filed against repudiation was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, but the State Commission reversed the decision of the District Forum and allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. As will be presently seen, the sole issue involved in the matter was whether this car, insured as a private car, was being used for commercial purpose.

3. The letter of repudiation of the claim from the insurer referred to FIR No. 53 of 30.6.2008 registered with Yamuna Nagar Police by one of the occupants, Gurpreet Singh. He had allegedly told the Surveyor/Investigator appointed by the insurer that the vehicle was hired by them for a religious trip for Rs. 25,000. The insurer, therefore, concluded that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of the accident in contravention of the terms of the policy.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is that there was no evidence in support of this claim of the respondent/insurer. The revision petition further states that:

"Most importantly, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, who had allegedly lodged the said FIR, had filed an affidavit before the District Forum in which he had categorically stated that he had never lodged any such FIR and he had never taken the vehicle of the Petitioner on hire."

5. The District Forum has examined in detail the affidavit of Raj Kumar Verma, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. The Investigator has stated that he had met Gurpreet Singh, who had filed the first information report with the police on 30.6.2008 and had mentioned in the FIR that the vehicle No. PB-07K-5111, belonging to Rajinder Singh, was taken on hire to go to Haridwar and Rishikesh. Therefore, Raj Kumar had categorically stated in his affidavit that Gurpreet Singh had told the police that this vehicle had been taken on hire. However, the District Forum has relied on the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh that he never made a statement before the police that the vehicle was taken on hire. The District Forum has also noted that neither the police investigation report nor the affidavit of the investigating police officer were produced before it on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Forum came to a conclusion that it was not proved that this vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.

6. As already noted, the above finding of the District Forum has been reversed by the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that:

"The case of the respondent is that in the month of June, 2008, he, along with his family friends was coming back from Rishikesh and was driving the car which met with an accident due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and in the said accident the respondent got fainted and was taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and after 2-3 days he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana where he got treated and regained his consciousness after 8 days of accident and that the respondent was discharged from the hospital after 20 days where he spent Rs. 3,00,000 on treatment. None of the facts stated in the complaint by the respondent is supported by an document except his own self serving affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) and affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh s/o Harvilas Singh (Ex. CW-2/A) who has stated that the respondent used the car No. PB-07K-5111 only for his own enjoyment. In addition another affidavit (Ex. CW-3/A) has been filed by Sh. Gurpreet Singh who was travelling in said vehicle on 29.6.2008 when it met with accident. It has been deposed by Sh. Gurpreet Singh that Sh. Rajinder Kumar, respondent was with him and was badly injured in the accident. This version of Sh. Gurpreet Singh,