The burden of proof lies with the insurer to justify claim repudiation, and lack of supporting evidence leads to a judgment in favor of the claimant.

JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM

1. This Revision Petition No. 241 of 2018 challenges the order of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (‘the State Commission’) dated 04.12.2017m vide which the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No. 116/2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, H.P (‘the District Forum’) dated 19.01.2017.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is the registered owner of Taxi Regn No. HP-01K-3851. He insured the vehicle with the Opposite Party (OP) insurer and the policy was valid up to 24.12.2014. The insured vehicle had met with a serious accident on 21.12.2013 near Army Transit Camp, Jhakri, Shimla, resulting in total loss of the vehicle. It is his contention that on reporting the incident, the damaged vehicle was inspected by the OP appointed surveyor, and all documents as demanded were duly submitted. Despite compliance with all policy terms and conditions, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective Driving License at the time of the accident. He contended that the claim repudiation is arbitrary, illegal, and amounts to deficiency in service by OP. The Complainant thus sought direction to OP to pay ₹6,00,000 towards the total loss of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% per annum, damages of ₹7,00,000 for mental agony, harassment, and financial loss caused due to non-settlement of the claim.

4. On being issued notice, the OP filed written version contending that the Complainant has no cause of action and no locus standi to file this complaint. He obtained insurance coverage under a Private Car Package Policy and the insured vehicle was registered and used as a Taxi/Transport Vehicle, thereby violating the policy conditions. The claim was repudiated strictly in accordance with law and policy conditions. The OP contended that at the time of the accident, the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, was found to have 98.33 mg of ethyl alcohol in his blood, which is far beyond the permissible limit, rendering the driver unfit and constituting a fundamental breach of the policy conditions. The OP sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide order dated 19.01.2017, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party as under:

“13. Since the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant without any legal substance, which amounted to deficiency in service. Consequently, the present complaint is allowed to the effect that the opposite party is directed to pay ₹4,60,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the actual payment.

14. Since the complainant was forced to file the present complaint, hence, the opposite party is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of ₹10,000/-and litigation cost to the tune of ₹3000/- to the complainant. The salvage of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01K-3851 shall remain the property of the complainant. With these observations, the present. complaint stands disposed of.

6. Being aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal and the State Commission, vide order dated 04.12.20217 dismissed the said Appeal with the following observations:

“5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

6. Fo