ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenging order dated 09.01.2017 of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No. 321 of 2011 confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar (in short, “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 164 of 2010 dated 25.02.2011.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that respondent’s Transit Mixer vehicle was insured by petitioner for the period 27.02.2008 to 26.02.2009. On 10.08.2008 the vehicle fell in a ditch while deployed in Essar Oil Mill, Vadinar, Jamnagar and suffered damages. A surveyor appointed by the petitioner assessed the damage. Respondent undertook repairs costing Rs.1,77,628.55 and submitted a claim. Petitioner repudiated the claim on the grounds that the respondent did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle and the vehicle lacked a valid permit on the date of incident. District Forum in complaint filed before it held that the repudiation was incorrect and directed payment of Rs.1,77,628.55 with Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and costs. The State Commission disallowed the appeal holding that the respondent had insurable interest since it had a temporary registration number and a final registration from District Transport Office, Baran, Rajasthan. It was held that petitioner erred in mentioning in the Policy that the vehicle was registered with RTO, Jamnagar since this was done 8 months after the insurance Policy was issued. The repudiation on the ground that the vehicle was being used in a ‘public place’ was also considered and it was held that the premises of Essar Oil Mill was covered under the definition of a ‘public place’. Hence, the order of the District Forum was confirmed with enhanced costs of Rs/5,000/-. This order is challenged before us.

4. The revision petition contends the impugned order to be erroneous and conjectural on the ground that the vehicle did not have a permit on the date of the incident which was a violation of the Policy terms and conditions since the permit was valid from 06.02.2009 to 05.02.2014 while the incident occurred on 10.08.2008. It is contended that the order only dealt with the issue of fitness of the vehicle. Further, while it was rightly held that the vehicle suffered an accident at a ‘public place’, it was not appreciated that it could not have been plied there without a valid permit and hence the order suffered from a material irregularity. The award of the entire expense on repairs was also argued to be erroneous as it did not consider any deductions for depreciation and excess clauses. It was argued that a contract of insurance has to be interpreted strictly as per settled law and the terms are binding on both parties, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Garg Sons International, 2013 (1) SCALE 410, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2005) ACJ 570 and National Insurance Co. Vs. Anjana Shyama, (2007) ACJ 2129.

5. The repudiation letter of the petitioner reads as under:

29.07.2009

With reference to above we refer to own damage claim lodged by you for accidental damages to your vehicle no. GJ-10-X-8281 on 10.08.2008.

1. On going through the papers submitted by you and as per survey report, it has been found that at the material time of the accident you were not having insurable interest in the Insured Vehicle.

2. Accident occurred on 10.08.2008 and permit of the vehicle is valid in your name from 06.02.2009 to 05.02.2014, which does not cover date of loss.

Hence, on the date of accident permit of the Insured Vehicle was not valid and also