IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like appellate Court.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member.—Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/the complainant/Kamaljit Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent””) is the registered owner of the truck bearing registration no PBO7 BQ 1136 (hereinafter referred to as “the vehicle”). The respondent was plying said vehicle for his self-employment and livelihood. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner No. l /opposite party No. 1 /the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner No. 1”) through the petitioner no 2 vide insurance policy number 242596/31/2019/TMC/26889 dated 21.07.2018 which was valid for the period from 21.07.2018, to 20.07.2019. The respondent paid the premium regularly. The vehicle in the month of January 2019 met with an accident in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent informed about the incident promptly intimated to the petitioner No. 2 and submitted requisite documents. The petitioner No. 2 submitted their report but no Daily Diary Report (DDR) or First Information Report (FIR) was registered with regard to accident by the local police as the accident involved only the overturning of the vehicle and no motor accident or collusion took place. The respondent paid Rs.8,11,330 toward the repairs. The respondent submitted original bills and the report of the surveyor to the petitioners at the time of filing insurance claim. The original documents are presently in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners despite the submission of requisite documents failed to settle the claim in its entirety and made only a partial payment of Rs.96,885 on 6.08.2019 and arbitrarily and unilaterally discarded entire insurance claim without proper justification. The respondent approached the petitioner no 2 for claiming the remaining insurance amount but the petitioners refused to give or satisfy further insurance claim amounting to Rs.7,14,445. There was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. The respondent being aggrieved filed the consumer complaint bearing no 126/2019 titled as Kamaljit Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another under Section 11 read with Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”). The respondent prayed that the petitioners be directed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.7,14,445 along with award of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for the financial loss, mental harassment and agony suffered by the respondent due to the deficient service besides claiming Rs.10,000 toward litigation expenses.

2. The petitioners/the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) filed written statement before the District Forum wherein stated that the respondent was plying the vehicle for commercial purposes and due to this reason, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The petitioners on reply on merits stated that vehicle met with an accident in the State of Madhya Pradesh which reflects that the vehicle was being plied for commercial purpose. The respondent submitted an estimate of Rs.1,90,000 tax extra prepared by M/s Mohinder and Sons, Khanna for repairing cabin and load body. The petitioners deputed Anil Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss to vehicle. The Surveyor submitted the Final Motor Surveyor Report wherein assessed loss to damage vehicle amounting to Rs.1,23,400. The CBO II/Jalandhar paid Rs.96,885 to the respondent after deducting Rs.29,440 as the respondent did not submit the bill of truck fuel. The petitioners also rermbursed Rs.4200 as spot survey fee bill which was paid by the respondent. The respondent also submitted further bills on 17.07.2019. There was no deficiency on the part of the petitioners. It was stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The respondent