ORDER

1.  This Revision Petition No.2301 of 2015 filed on 03.09.2015 challenges the impugned order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 11.05.2015.  Vide this order, the learned State Commission allowed Appeal No.898 of 2014 and dismissed the complaint. In turn, this Appeal was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 20.08.2014. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the Respondent/OP-National Insurance Company (‘OP’, hereafter) to pay Rs.7,53,822 as the full value of damaged vehicle as per insurance cover note, subject to submission of salvage of damaged vehicle, subrogation letter and other documents, if required by the OP. The OP was also burdened to pay Rs.3300 as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. The said order was to be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.

2.      Briefly, the facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant got his car bearing temporary registration No. HR 99 LSTP-2760 insured from Respondent/Opposite party for Rs.7,53,822 on 14.04.2012 and policy was valid up to 13.04.2013. On 07.05.2012 while driving the car, Shri Virender Malik stuck against tree and the car was totally damaged. FIR was registered at P.S. Rajound on that very day wherein false allegations were levelled that he was driving the car at a very high speed. Information about accident was also given to Respondent/ OP on that very day and it's authorized agent assessed the loss. The car was shifted to Akash Motors Limited, Kaithal and surveyor reported that this was a case of total loss. He duly replied the letter dated 21.11.2012 issued by the Respondent/OP to explain about report of surveyor and investigator, but, no action was taken. He was entitled for the insured value of the car and filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The Respondent/OP filed reply controverting the averments and alleged that the Complainant had concealed true facts. Shri Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor while driving the car, which was clearly proved from his MLR. Investigating and Detective agency namely M/s Royal Associates recorded the statement of Shri Virender Malik, Complainant Shri Sandeep Dhanda, Amar Pal and Rajesh Kumar, wherein it was admitted that Shri Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor. It was not a case of total loss and car was repairable as per report of surveyor. His claim was rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short "MV Act"). Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On appeal, the State Commission, after hearing counsels on behalf of both the parties, allowed the same vide Order dated 11.05.2015 and dismissed the Complaint.  The State Commission reasoned as below:

“7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that there is no evidence on the file showing that Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. There is no medical report to the effect that level of Alcohol in blood was existing 30 mg per ML of blood. He was also not challenged for the offence punishable under section 185 and 202 of MV Act. Accused Virender Malik was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 20.05.2013. As there was no evidence about influence of liquor, O.P. wrongly repudiated his claim. Findings of the District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.

8.        This argument is of no avail. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Rajesh Kumar, copy of which is EX.C-9. It is specifically