National Consumer Disputes RedressalSher Singh Thakur vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 23 February, 2017NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 4581 OF 2013     (Against the Order dated 21/06/2013 in Appeal No. 72/2013      of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)        1. SHER SINGH THAKUR  R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SHIRAR,
TEHSIL &   DISTRICT : KULLU  H.P ...........Petitioner(s)  Versus        1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.  BRANCH OFFICE NN BUILDING, AKHARA BAZAR,
  KULLU   H.P ...........Respondent(s) 
  	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT    HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER 
      For the Petitioner     :      Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate       For the Respondent      :     Ms. Pankaj Bala Varma, Advocate  
 Dated : 23 Feb 2017  	    ORDER    	    

ORDER (ORAL)By this Revision Petition, underSection 21(b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Complainant/Insured calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.06.2013, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.72 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has over turned the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.29 of 2012.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, alleging deficiency in service on their part in not indemnifying the loss suffered by him on account of the accident of the insured vehicle on 12.12.2011, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹2,65,559/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.; ₹2,500/- as compensation and litigation expenses quantified at ₹2,000/-.The occasion to file the Complaint arose when, as noted above, the vehicle in question viz. Mahindra  Genio registered as 'goods vehicle' under theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, and insured with the Insurance Company for the period 25.03.2011 to 24.03.2012, met with an accident on the afore-said date.  The vehicle was completely damaged.  The Surveyor, appointed by the Insurance Company to assess the loss suffered on account of the accident, observed that the vehicle in question was on way to Shirar to Jalohra with eight persons on board and as it reached at the spot of the accident on downhill gradient,  it skidded on ice over road surface and on this, the Insured's brother, who was reported to be driving the vehicle at the time of accident, lost control and thus, the uncontrolled vehicle went off road and fell from upper loop of road to the lower loop, resulting in extensive damage to the vehicle.On receipt of the report submitted by the Surveyor, vide its letter dated 01.05.2012, the Insurance Company asked the Complainant to explain as to why "violation of limitation as to use" was ignored by him by using the vehicle for carrying unauthorized persons.  He was also required to submit certain documents.  In the same letter, the Complainant was informed that in the event of non-receipt of the explanation and the demanded documents within 30 days from the date of the said letter, the Insurance Company shall be constrained to file his case as "no claim".  Admittedly, there was no response to the said letter on behalf of the Complainant.  Instead, the Complainant preferred to file the Complaint in which the aforestated direction had been given.Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company carried the matter further in Appeal before the State Commission.  Relying on the decision of this Commission in "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashwani Kumar, I(2013) CPJ 21B (NC) (CN)" wherein it was held that since carrying of persons in goods vehicle is a flagrant violation of the conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company could repudiated the claim in such a situation.Hence the present Revision Petition.Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, including the terms and conditions of the policy, specifying the 'limitation as to use' andSection 66 (1)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we are not persuaded to hold that the State Commission has committed any illegality or material irregularity in coming to the afore-noted conclusion.Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Complainant submits that since the passengers, siting in the ill-fated vehicle were the custodians of their goods, being transported in the vehicle, their presence in the vehicle at the time of accident could not be said to be illegal.In support of his submission that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge the onus, which lay on it, to prove that the use of goods vehicles for transporting passengers had some nexus with the accident, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, II(2016) CPJ 3 (SC)".In our opinion,the said decisionhas absolutely no bearing on facts at hand.  Apart from the fact that the learned Counsel has not been able to satisfy us that on the account of presence of passengers in goods vehicle, there was no violation of Section 66 (1) of the M. V. Act, as the owners of the goods, being transported, were entitled to accompany the goods, no such plea was urged before the Fora below.  Besides, complainant chose not to respond to the afore-noted letter issued by the Insurance Company dated 01.05.2012, whereby explanation on a specific query in this behalf was sought from him.Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.......................J  D.K. JAIN  PRESIDENT  ......................  M. SHREESHA  MEMBER