Rakhi Soni vs Branch Manager

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Rakhi Soni against the order dated 09.10.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.FA/13/641.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of an Inova vehicle bearing registration No.J.H.B-4911, which was insured with the respondent/opposite party for the period from 04.02.2011 to 03.02.2012 and the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.8,31,250/-. On 01.06.2011 while the vehicle was returning from village Anpara then near village Kunwari one dumper bearing registration No.U.P.64-E-9761 dashed the vehicle in question. At that time the vehicle was being driven by its driver negligently and rashly. In the accident, three persons died and some persons sustained injuries. Due to the accident, the vehicle in question suffered total loss. The matter was reported to Police Station, Pipri, District Sonbhadra (U.P.). Thereafter the injured persons and Legal Heirs of the deceased have filed claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the petitioner/complainant obtained an estimate for Rs.11,62,347/- for the repairing work of the vehicle in question. The respondent/opposite party also appointed a spot surveyor for survey and for assessment of loss to the vehicle in question. Thereafter the petitioner/complainant submitted her claim before the respondent/opposite party but the respondent/opposite party repudiated her claim. Hence the petitioner/complainant filed this complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint. The respondent/opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made against it. The respondent/opposite party pleaded that the vehicle in question was returning from village Anpara with Barati and at that time the driver of the vehicle in question was driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and a dumper bearing registration No.U.P.64-E-9761 dashed the vehicle. Three persons died in the accident and some other persons sustained injuries. The vehicle in question was being driven as taxi in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondent/opposite party appointed surveyor, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,31,250/-, but the petitioner/complainant is not entitled for getting any compensation because she violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, her claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent/opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. District Forum vide its order dated 29.10.2013 dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dated 29.10.2013, complainant preferred appeal bearing No.FA/13/641 before the State Commission and the State Commission also dismissed the appeal.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on the day of accident the vehicle was bringing the barati and the vehicle was not used for regular hire and reward. Both the fora below have, without any evidence, relied upon the allegation of the opposite party that the vehicle was being used as taxi i.e. for hire and reward purpose. The vehicle was fully insured under the Private Car Package Insurance Policy and the insurance claim of the vehicle is fully payable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that the vehicle was being used as taxi and the complainant has more than one taxi and therefore, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact that the vehicle was being used as a taxi for hire and reward purposes and the complainant also had more than one vehicle. Thus, the complainant is an established taxi operator. Hence, there is no force in the revision petition and the same may be dismissed.

I have thoroughly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. The State Commission has observed as under:-

"19. It appears that the vehicle in question was being used as taxi instead of Private Car, whereas the insurance policy was issued under Private Car Package Policy and the appellant (complainant) gave the vehicle in question on hire and the vehicle in question was carrying barati at the time of accident, which were violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Looking to the income tax returns of the appellant (complainant), it appears that the appellant (complainant) is having more than 1 vehicle and the vehicles were being used as Taxi. Therefore, the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity and does not call any interference by this Commission."

From the above, it is clear that the State Commission has examined the income tax returns of the complainant and has found that income is being shown from more than one taxi. Clearly, the complainant was violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 regularly and knowingly with a view to avoid road tax. In such situation, no leniency can be shown towards the complainant. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact that the vehicle was being used as taxi and, therefore, facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of the revision petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, as under:-

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

On the basis of the above examination, I do not find any occasion to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the State Commission as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is seen in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition No.4384 of 2014 is dismissed.