IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Charge Sheet – Commission is of the view that the hyper technical view taken by the Ld. State Commission in not accepting the photocopies of the certified copies of the Charge Sheet.
(2) Incorrect or forged – It was nowhere the case of the Complainants/Respondents that the documents so relied upon or the Final Report submitted by the Police after investigation were incorrect or forged.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh in First Appeal No.87 of 2018, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was partly allowed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was modified.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that Complainant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, and the other Complainants are his children and mother. The deceased, Tulsi Ram, was the owner of an Alto K10 car bearing registration No. DL-8CZ-3443, which he purchased for personal use. He insured the car with the Opposite Party/Petitioner Insurance Company for a sum assured of Rs. 2,41,633/, valid from 18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015. The car met with an accident on 25.01.2015 near Kashdhar, Theog, District Shimla, resulting in extensive damage. An FIR was lodged with the Police, and intimation was given to the Insurance Company. After submitting the documents requested by the Insurance Company, a final survey was conducted by the Insurance Company’s Surveyor. About one year after the accident, the Complainants received a letter dated 09.07.2015, in which the Claim was repudiated on the grounds that the driver was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. Aggrieved by the wrongful repudiation by the Insurance Company, the Complainants filed their Complaint before the Learned District Forum, Shimla.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 15.11.2017 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Complainants the sum of Rs.2,31,068/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till the date of realization, along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. The Petitioners then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which partly allowed it and modified the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below:—

“15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that driver of vehicle in question namely Shri Tulsi Ram was under the influence of liquor and quantity of alcohol in blood of driver was found to the extent of 101.14mg% which was in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance policy and in violation of section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act and on this ground appeal filed by Insurance company be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance company relied upon photostat report of SFSL Junga Annexure-OP6 placed on record signed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Scientific Officer and Dr. V.S. Jamwal Assistant Director. State Commission has carefully perused photostat report submitted by FSL Junga. There is recital in photostat report that report is admissible under section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. As per section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 report of scientific expert is per se admissible in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is well settled law that proceedings of original consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act are not criminal proceedings in nature but are civil proceedings in nature. State Commission is of the opinion that section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 relates to certified copy of public document and does not relates to photostat copy of public document. It is well settled law that photostat copy is not primary evidence of document but is only secondary evidence of document.

16. In view of fact that proceedings of original consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act are civil proceedings in nature State Commission is of the opinion that photostat report of scientific expert is not per se admissible in civil proceedings. Insurance company did not file affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Scientific Officer and Dr. V.S. Jamwal Assistant Director in order to prove controversial facts mentioned in photostat FSL report. Even Insurance company did