IMPORTANT POINT
Burden of Proof – The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.

ORDER

The present two Revision Petitions (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the common order dated 14.02.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahemdabad, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.524-525/2017 in which order dated 28.07.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahemdabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the common order of State Commission and allow the revision petitions. As the above stated RPs have been filed against the similar/related orders of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. For the sake of convenience, parties would also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants in the said FAs 524/2017 & FA/525/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent(s) were Complainants before the District Forum in the CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014. Notice was issued to the Respondent. Both parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 06.10.2023.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

The complaint stems from an accident on 23.04.2014 involving Bipinbhai Mohanlal Maheta and Hareshbhai Vallabhdas Gandhi. The car, owned by Hareshbhai and driven by Bipinbhai, was insured by the OP Insurance Company for the period from 09.05.2012 to 08.05.2013, with comprehensive coverage, including personal accident insurance for the owner-driver and paid driver. The accident occurred near the Mithdi river bridge in Rajasthan when a truck allegedly drove rashly, colliding with the car. Both Bipinbhai and Hareshbhai lost their lives in the accident. Bipinbhai’s family filed a complaint (no. 22/14) seeking compensation for his personal accident insurance, which was sanctioned by the District Forum. However, claims for the car damage (complaint no. 23/14), transportation expenses incurred (bringing the car to Ahmedabad from Rajasthan), rent at the Toyota Company (from the accident date to the complaint filing), and an amount for mental trauma totaling Rs. 8,19,222/- with 18% yearly interest and costs were rejected by the insurance company. Additionally, in complaint no. 24/14, a claim for Rs. 2,00,000/- for personal accident and Rs. 25,000/- for mental anguish was sought, along with interest and costs.

4. Vide common Order dated 28.07.2017, in the CC/23/2014 & CC/24/2014 the District Forum has dismissed the complaints. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.07.2017 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 14.02.2019 in FA/524/2017 & FA/525/2017 has set aside the order of District forum and partially allowed the appeals.

5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dat ed 14.02.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) The State Commission overlooked that according to the Motor Vehicle Act and Policy Conditions, the person driving the insured vehicle must hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. In this case, the deceased driver/insured lacked the necessary valid driving license as required by the insurance contract. The State Commission failed to consider the police documents, including the FIR, Panchnama, and investigation report, which indicate that the deceased insured, Harish Kumar, was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The State Commission did not acknowledge that the Driving License iss