IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revisional Jurisdiction - The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction.
(2) Two interpretations - Where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 18.07.2012 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 367 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent/ complainant took insurance cover from the petitioner/opposite party, New India Assurance Company Lt d., in respect of his truck bearing registration no. HP 10B 2505 for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- on 19.04.2006 for a period of one year from 19.04.2006 to 18.04.2007. Premium was duly paid to the insurance company. On 24.07.2006, the said truck met with an accident at village Smmerkot, Tehsil Rohroo when the vehicle was on its way from Dalgnon to Delhi via Sungari. The accident was reported to the Police Station, Rohroo. Due to the said accident, the vehicle suffered extensive damage. Insurance company was also intimated about the accident. The insurance company appointed a spot surveyor who visited and inspected the spot of accident. Respondent was called upon to file a claim form. He submitted an estimate of repairs of Rs.1,50,000/- to the insurance company. Subsequently, the bills of repairs were also forwarded to the insurance company. As no information regarding the claim was received from the insurance company, the respondent/ complainant repeatedly visited the office of the insurance company. He was repeatedly informed by the officials of the insurance company that the claim was under process. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 28.09.2007 on the ground that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was not valid. Hence, the respondent/ complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in short, ‘the District Forum’) and prayed for payment of:—

(i) A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from 24.07.2006 till date of payment;

(ii) A sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; and

(iii) A sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The petitioner/complainant (insurance company) contested the case before the District Forum by way of reply. The District Forum vide its order dated 27.07.2010 allowed the complaint on non-standard basis and held as under:—

“6. The summon bonnum of the controversy interse the parties, is, qua, whether the fitness certificate issued by the concerned authority was fake or not. The complainant relies upon the endorsement in the registration certificate declaring the vehicle to be fit to be plied on the date of the accident. However, the endorsement qua the fitness of the afflicted vehicle was subjected to verification and the investigator elicited the opinion of the concerned registering authority, under Annexure R – 10, who, at the foot of the verification conducted by Shri S L Saini, Surveyor and Loss Assessor qua the genuineness or otherwise of the endorsement qua fitness of the afflicated vehicle, has recorded, a statement that the endorsement qua fitness is fake. Hence, we are lacked the fitness to be plied, especially, when the statement so recorded by the concerned RLA though has been unassailed by the complainant, yet for lack of opposite proof qua its authenticity, the same has to be accroded sancity.

7. In the light of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 2703 of 2010 in case titled Amalendu Sahoo vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, in case of any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, construable to be inclusive of the afflicted vehicle not possessing a fitness certificate, the OP company is liable to settle the claim of the complainant, on a non-standard basis. More so, when in the citation referred above the infraction as alleged was qua limitation as use of th