1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1689/2013, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party was dismissed.

2.       Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that the Complainant is owner of Bolero D.I. U.P. 56 F 6050. The vehicle was insured by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party under Policy No. 1909712311000676 valid from 11.10.2011 to 10.10.2012 as a private vehicle for an insured sum of Rs. 5,12,537/-. During the subsistence of the Policy, the vehicle met with an accident at the Railway Crossing with a moving vehicle, on 31.01.2012, resulting in complete damage of the vehicle and death of driver Nabi Hussain. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party Insurance Company regarding the accident and presented a claim for insurance, but the same has not been paid. The Complainant also sent notice through his Advocate, on 06.08.2012, but there was no reply. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party, the Complainant approached District Forum with following prayer:

“1. That by a decree for payment in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party for payment of claim amount of Bolero D.I. UP 56 F/ 600 with compensation may be ordered to be paid.

2. That opposite party may be directed to pay litigation cost and Advocate’s fees to the complainant.

3. That if in the opinion of the Court the complainant is found entitled to any other relief than a decree in respect of the same may be granted in favour of the complainant.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement wherein it was submitted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for carriage of passengers for hire and reward, while the vehicle was registered and insured as a private vehicle. The use of vehicle was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The Opposite Party was, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. As soon as the Insurance Company got information that the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms of the Policy, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant, vide letter dated 06.07.2012, stating that the vehicle was registered as private vehicle but was used for commercial purpose.

4.       The District Forum, vide order dated 01.07.2013, allowed the Complaint in following terms: -  

“This complaint is being decided against the opposite party. The opposite party should pay the insured value of the vehicle in question which met with accident on 31.01.2012 with Rs.10,000=00 as compensation and two thousand Rupees as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. On failing they will have to pay 10% annual interest on the remaining amount after the said period of one month.”

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.07.2013, the Opposite Party filed First Appeal No. 1689/2013 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 07.07.2015, dismissed the Appeal in following terms:

“Dismissing the present appeal the impugned judgement and order date 01.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Maharajganj is confirmed.

The insurance company would be entitled for salvage in accordance with rules. Both the parties shall bear their own expenses of this appeal.”

6.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.07.2015, the Opposite Party has filed the instant Revision Petition with following prayer: -

“a)   call for the records of the Appeal being Appeal No. 1689/2014 before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow titled as “Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Allauddin Ansari” and upon perusal of the records, be pleased to set aside the judgement and order dated 07.07.2015 passed in the said Appeal;

b)     award costs of these proceedings in favour of the Petitioner;

c)       pass such other/ further order/ directions as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

7.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that State Commission as well as District Forum failed to appreciate that the vehicle was being used by the Respondent for earning money by carrying passengers, while it was registered and insured as private vehicle and not as passenger carrying vehicle. Along with the claim form, the Respondent also submitted an affidavit wherein it was stated that the vehicle in question was being used for earning money. Since the vehicle was used by the Respondent as passenger carrying vehicle, despite registering and insuring the vehicle as a private vehicle, the claim was repudiated by the Petitioner. The act of the Respondent amounted to breach of Motor Vehicles Act as well as violation of Policy conditions. The Insurance Policy issued in respect of private and passenger carrying vehicles are different and premium charged for the latter category is higher than the former. Thus, if a vehicle registered and insured as a private vehicle is being used for earning money by carrying passengers, it would amount to violation of the Insurance policy and the Petitioner is entitled to repudiate claim made under the Policy by such owner.      

8.       Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner solely relied on an affidavit alleging that the same had been filed in the office of the Petitioner. It was stated that the stamp paper was purchased on 18.01.2012 and the accident took place on 31.01.2012. The said affidavit, dated 26.02.2012 was signed and attested on 28.05.2012 by Notary Advocate. The contents of stamp paper, signature and stamp of Notary Advocate were taken under the clouds and conspiracy hatched by the Petitioner to eschew the liability of the payment. Even if the contents of the affidavit are taken as true, the content of the affidavit never depose that the vehicle was used for Commercial Purpose. Another contention of the Opposite Party that 22 passengers were sitting in the vehicle was also not correct. Copy of FIR registered by the SHO shows that 22 people were not passenger but were blocking the way and causing obstruction to Government works. The Fora below rightly held that the vehicle was not used for commercial purposes.    

9.       The contention of the Petitioner was that the Vehicle was used for commercial purpose, after registering and insuring for private use. Perusal of the affidavit shows that Nabi Hussain was the driver of the Respondent and the vehicle was used to earn livelihood. There is no evidence that the Respondent was using the vehicle for large scale business or for any travel agency. There is no evidence that the driver was carrying passengers in the regular course of business to make profit. It can only be deduced from the affidavit that the Respondent was using the vehicle for earning livelihood. The Petitioner has clearly erred in repudiating the claim of the Respondent and the Fora below had rightly observed in the favour of the Respondent. 

10.     Also, jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

11.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23.        The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

12.     The State Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the Appeal. We see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.