IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non Standard basis - Therefore, it is clear that the Insurance Company was required to settle the claim on non-standard basis.
(2) Plying - The Transport Authority of Haryana had found the vehicle fit for being plied in Haryana. It cannot, therefore, be said that the vehicle was not fit for plying in Himachal Pradesh.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.725/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondents/Opposite Parties was allowed.

2. Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that vehicle No.HR-37A-7847 (fuel tanker) of the Complainant was insured with the Respondents/Opposite Parties from 09.08.2007 to 08.08.2008 for Rs.4,50,000/-. On 25.06.2008, the tanker while carrying diesel from Ambala to Kullu met with an accident near Deyol barrier. Entire fuel spread and the tanker got damaged. FIR was lodged with Police Stataion Sadari Mand, Himachal Pradesh. Intimation of accident was also given to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor, who visited the place of incident on 26.06.2008. The tanker was carried to the service centre of Tata Motors, which gave an estimate of repairs of Rs.10,22,410/-. The Complainant also suffered loss of Rs.3,87,606/- on account of loss of diesel, as the said amount of Rs.3,87,606/- was deducted by Indian Oil Corporation from the bill of the Complainant. The Complainant filed two separate claims before the Opposite Parties, one for loss to the tanker and another for loss of diesel. The Opposite Parties failed to settle the claims of the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed two separate Consumer Complaints i.e. CC/446/2009 and CC/221/2009.

3. The Complaints were contested by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statements admitting the fact that the Complainant filed the claim for loss caused to the tanker. The Complainant, however, did not report for loss of fuel. The Opposite Parties, therefore, did not appoint the Surveyor for assessment of loss of fuel. It was stated that Tanker No.HR-37-A-7847 was plied in Himachal Pradesh without route permit in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well as in contravention to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Complainant filed two Complaints to put pressure on the Opposite Party. It was also stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

4. The District Forum, vide common order dated 22.04.2011, allowed both Complaints with following direction:—

“(i) To assess the claim for the loss of fuel on the basis of spot survey conducted by the surveyor and to pay 75% of the assessed claim to the complainant treating it on non-standard basis.

(ii) To pay the total damage claim of the tanker in question to the extent of 75% treating it on non-standard basis.

(iii) To pay Rs.15,000/- for deficiency in service and for litigation expenses.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.04.2011, the Opposite Parties filed First Appeal No.725/2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 31.10.2012, allowed the Appeals and dismissed the Complaints.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2012, the Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition with following prayer:—

“(a) This Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the present Revision and set aside the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Ld. State Commission in First Appeal No.725 of 2011 and confirm the order passed by the Ld. District Forum.

(b) Pass such any order or further order/relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate the facts on record and passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The State Commission gravely erred in holding that the Complainant did not have any route permit to ply the vehicle in Himachal Pradesh. The State Commission f