PER MR. S.K. NAIK

This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant, Amalendu Sahoo against the order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (here after referred to as the State Commission) passed in Appeal No. SC-315/A/2003 vide which the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Midnapore (here after referred to as the District Forum).

Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner – complainant’s Tata Sierra Car WB-34C/1919 was insured with the respondent – Oriental Insurance Company Limited comprehensively.  During the currency of the policy, the vehicle which was allegedly provided as a friendly gesture to the United Bank of India, Sepai Bazar Branch, Midnapore met with an accident.  Claim of the petitioner – complainant for re-imbursement of the loss sustained in the accident being repudiated by the respondent – insurance company, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.  The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint holding that the vehicle in question was on hire at the time of the accident.  Under the policy, insurance cover was applicable only for purposes like social, domestic and pleasure trips.  An appeal was filed against the said order of the District Forum before the State Commission who agreed with the findings of the District Forum that the car indeed was given to the bank for commercial purpose i.e. on hire in contravention of the provisions of the policy.  Dissatisfied with these concurrent findings and dismissal of his complaint that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken before the State Commission and contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that in the absence of any concrete evidence onus of which was entirely on the insurance company to prove; it could not have arrived at the finding that the vehicle was let out for hire.  The counsel submits that the petitioner – complainant had offered the use of its car completely gratis to help the bank officials in an emergency when they could not get any other vehicle on hire for the transportation of their cash.  He has contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the bank officials in their letter never stated that the vehicle was taken on hire.  The counsel has vehemently argued that both the fora below have dismissed the well merited complaint of the petitioner merely on technical grounds whereas they ought to have given the benefit of doubt, if any to the consumer complainant as enshrined in the CP Act, 1986.  The counsel submits that the State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and therefore its order deserves to be set aside. 

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has contended that the District Forum as well as the State Commission have dealt at length the evidence produced by both the sides and unequivocally given the finding that the car was given for use of bank officials on hire which was not covered by the insurance policy in question.  They have neither committed any irregularity nor have exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them and therefore there is no justification for any interference in its revisional jurisdiction by this Commission.  He has further submitted that the objections being raised by the counsel for the petitioner – complainant have been fully considered at length and reasons as to why the State Commission came to the conclusion that the car was used for commercial purpose, that is on hire, has been given in detail in its order.  He has therefore submitted that the revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties carefully.  We have also gone through the detailed orders passed by the fora below and have given our thoughtful consideration to this case.   

It is not the case of the petitioner – complainant that the insurance policy covered the use of his personal car beyond social, domestic and drive for pleasure.  Both the fora below having fully considered the evidence brought before them and finally concluding that the car at the time of accident was being used on hire cannot be over looked since, as has been opined by the State Commission, ‘preponderance of circumstances and probability’ clearly established that the car was given on hire and not as a gesture of goodwill.  Since the terms in the policy are to be treated as an agreement between the parties, the Consumer Forum has to construe the terms and conditions of the policy strictly, which in our view both the fora below have correctly done.  Under the circumstances there is no scope of any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in the well reasoned concurrent order passed by the fora below.  The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.