ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.12.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 214 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 27.02.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 401 of 2010.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the respondents herein), and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 27.02.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 30.12.2013 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       Briefly, the complainant’s vehicle, a pick-up, was insured with the insurance co. The premium was paid, the policy was valid. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident (with a minibus) and suffered complete damage. The claim was repudiated on grounds that at the relevant time the vehicle was being used for carrying diesel, which falls under ‘hazardous goods’, without a valid road permit and without an endorsement on the driver’s license apropos ‘hazardous goods’.

The District Commission allowed the complaint on contest. It held that at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying empty drums of diesel and ‘hazardous goods’ per se were not being transported, hence there was also no need for any endorsement re ‘hazardous goods’ on the driving licence. It ordered the insurance co. to pay a sum of Rs. 3,51,290/- (75% of the insured value) on non-standard basis for the completely damaged vehicle with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 26.11.2010 i.e. from the date of institution of the complaint along with compensation of Rs. 1000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 1000/-.

Appeal filed by the insurance co. was allowed by the State Commission. It held that at the time of the accident the vehicle was transporting drums filled with diesel which falls under ‘hazardous goods’ and its driver was not having an endorsement on his driving licence re ‘hazardous goods’. Consequently the complaint stood dismissed.

4.       The State Commission has given detailed reasons for holding that ‘diesel’ falls under ‘hazardous goods’. In this regard the learned counsel for the two sides do not have any difference of opinion, both agree that ‘diesel’ falls under ‘hazardous goods’. Both of them also agree that for ‘hazardous goods’ relevant road permit and endorsement on the driver’s licence are mandatory. The only point of contention is regarding whether or not the vehicle was in fact carrying diesel. Learned counsel for the complainant primarily relies on the police report filed by the police before the concerned judicial magistrate after completion of its investigation in which it is clearly stated that the vehicle was carrying “empty” diesel drums showing thereby that diesel per se was not being transported. Learned counsel for the insurance co. solely relies on the first information report which according to her gives a connotation that filled diesel drums were actually being transported. In rebuttal learned counsel for the complainant contends that the articulation in the first information report does not give a clear and categorical suggestion that filled diesel drums were being transported, and in any case the subsequent fact finding police investigation conclusively shows that empty drums were in fact being transported.

5.       It is admitted that the claim per se is genuine, there is no dispute on the accident having happened and the vehicle having suffered complete damage. It is also admitted that the subject vehicle’s driver was not in any manner at fault for the accident i.e. lack of expertise on his part was not the reason for the accident. It is further admitted that the vehicle, a pick-up, was, in the ordinary course, transporting normal goods only i.e. it was not being used exclusively or regularly for carrying ‘hazardous goods’. It is not even the insurance co.’s case that the v