ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondent/Opposite Party challenging the impugned Order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahemedabad, in Appeal/Complaint No. 2009/2013 arising out of Complaint Application No. 193 of 2012. Vide the said Order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Bhuj- Kuchchh in Complaint Application No. 193 of 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had insured his car being a Xylo Model with the Opposite Party under Policy/ cover note no. 76706839 for a period from 26.05.2011 to 25.05.2012. The said car was being used as a Taxi which was badly damaged in an accident on 19.06.2011 at Koriyani – Naliya Road resulting in its total loss. The total value of the car was valued at Rs.6,52,525/- for the purposes of insurance. It was submitted by the Complainant that the Opposite Party conducted survey on 05.08.2011 and further demanded various documents, of which the available documents were sent by the Complainant. It was further averred that a Legal Notice dated 05.06.2012 was served on the Opposite Party as no claim was settled. Hence, subsequently, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum for Rs.6,52,525/- claiming deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party, along with other reliefs.

3. The Opposite Party appeared before the District Forum and in resisting the Complaint denied all the allegations against it. It was contended by the Opposite Party that on verification of documents, it was revealed that according to the Police complaint, the vehicle of the complainant was being driven by one Hathubha Kalaji Sodha. However, the Complainant had failed to produce the Driving License of Hathubha Kalaji Sodha despite several reminders. Hence, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.02.2012. According to the final Survey Report, the vehicle was in total loss as opined by the surveyor. But, as payment cannot be made to the complainant as per norms for total loss, therefore, the claim was repudiated. Hence, the Opposite Party contended that it has not been deficient in service.

4. The Ld. District Forum vide its order dated 08.08.2013 observed that the main contention of the Complainant was that F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Kanuba Mahendrasinh Sodha, however, as she had no right information about who was driving vehicle at the time of accident, she inadvertently mentioned the name of Hathubha Kalaji Sodha as driver, although the vehicle was being driven by one Anvarbhai Manjothi at the time of the accident. Hence, after filing the Police complaint, an Application along with an Affidavit was given at the Police Station to modify the original complaint with a request to replace the name of Hathubha Kalaji Sodha with that of Anvarbhai Manjothi in the Police complaint because by mistake, the name of driver had wrongly been mentioned. Consequently, the main contention of the Insurance Company was that it was declared in the F.I.R. that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Hathubha Kalaji Sodha, and, as he had no valid and effective Driving License, the name of the driver had been changed to Anvar Manjothi later. Hence, it was contended by the Opposite Party that at the time of the accident, vehicle was being driven by Hathubha Kalaji Sodha, and he was given the vehicle for driving even without a Driving License. Hence, it was further averred that the Complainant had committed a breach of main condition of the Policy, on account of which, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim.

5. The Ld. District Forum while allowing the Complaint of the Complainant held that—

“…According to our opinion, as F.I.R. itself is not substantive evidence, only on the fact that in F.I.R., name of driver is mentioned as Hathubha Kalaji Sodha, i