1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 21.07.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1002 of 2013 in which order dated 08.08.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 367/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the State Commission in FA No. 1002/2013. 

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Respondent and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as OPs/Insurance Company) were Appellants in the said FA/1002/2013 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondents were OPs before the District Forum in the CC No. 367/12.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 11.05.2018 in the Revision Petition as well as in the application for condonation of delay.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 05.09.2023 (Petitioner) and 04.09.2023 (Respondents) respectively. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 10 days.  Delay is condoned. 

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

(i)      On 26.04.2011, the petitioner purchased an insurance policy from the Respondents for his vehicle, Chevrolet Tavera, Registration No. –RJ 18 UA 2935.  The period of insurance was from 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012.  On 27.08.2011, the car of the petitioner met with an accident while on route from Pilani to Baeda. On 30.08.2011, the petitioner reported the incident vide motor claim form of the respondent. It was stated in the said form that the vehicle was being used for private purposes.  It was also stated that the car is in the workshop of Triumph Motors, Sikar and can be inspected there. After inspection by the surveyor of the insurance company stated that the approximate cost of repair will be Rs.1,93,000/- .  On 07.10.2011, the total cost of repairs of vehicle was 1,19,034/- vide the proforma invoice generated by Triumph Motors, Sikar in the name of the petitioner.  The petitioner continued to make his monthly installments on the loan taken by him at the time of purchase of the vehicle. 

(ii)     On 01.02.2012, the Respondents/Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident or even otherwise and that he lacks insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident.  On 27.02.2012, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondents, wherein it was stated that the car has been insured for an amount of Rs.5,82,000/- by the petitioner with the insurance company and he has made all payments with regard to the same.  It was also stated that the insurance company was notified immediately after the accident had occurred since it was insured with the respondent.  The petitioner denied the grounds on which the respondent had refused payment of the insurance amount.  The petitioner requested that the insurance amount be paid within 15 days or he would have to take legal action against the respondent. Hence, the complainant/petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum on 22.03.2012.

5.       Vide Order dated 08.08.2013, in the CC No. 367 of 2012 the District Forum has partially allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.81,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order and on this amount will pay interest @12% p.a. from 01.02.2012  till payment. District Forum also directed the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment and financial loss and also Rs.1500/- towards litigation cost. 

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated of District Forum, Respondents/Insurance Company appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 21.07.2017  in FA No. 1002/2013 has accepted the Appeal and dismissed the complaint.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 21.07.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. the State Commission has overlooked the fact that the petitioner is owner of the car. The care is registered in his name.  Registration Certificate is proof of ownership in regard to a motor vehicle.  No change of any sort has been made to the registration certificate i.e. no transfer has been effected.  The District Forum recorded that “It is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle is registered in the name of complainant and the policy is also taken in his name and in this respect there is no violation of any condition.  In this respect, it will be incorrect to state that in such case, the complainant is not eligible to claim the benefit of policy.”

2. The State Commission has failed to notice that the instalments on the loan of the said care are still being paid by the petitioner.  The OP failed to provide any document or evidence regarding commercial use of the car. The OPs just to evade their liability to pay the benefits of insurance to the petitioner, for which he paid the premium and has a right over it, came up with an incorrect narrative, that the car was being used for commercial purposes.  The District Forum observed that “Whether the vehicle was used for personal or commercial purpose, in this regard no solid evidence has been given by the insurance company.  Further, the insurance company was not successful in proving that the said vehicle at the time of accident was being used for commercial purposes.  The surveyor of insurance company has not been able to provide that at the time of accident was any passenger travelling in vehicle on payment of fare.  Thus, only on the basis of belief of insurance company it cannot be confirmed that the vehicle was used for commercial use.”  The OP failed to prove that the complainant has sold the vehicle and that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. 

3. The State Commission failed to notice that the case of the OP is self-contradictory as on one hand the OP is submitting that the Petitioner had given the vehicle to his brother and on the other hand has submitted that the Petitioner had sold off the vehicle to one Rajvir. The reports filed by the OP to substantiate his arguments are unreliable and cannot be made basis for the decision.

4. The order of the State Commission is even otherwise bad in law and to be set aside.

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1     In addition to the averments made in the Petition, the petitioner contended that the Respondents made contradictory pleadings throughout the course of the proceedings, which is against its own case.  The insured vehicle in consideration has never been sold and has been used for private and family purposes only.  The Respondents alleged that the vehicle has been sold, has made contradicting submission.  Regarding the issue of ownership of the insured vehicle, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar V. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC1, it is laid down that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered i.e., whose name reflects as owner in the records of the Registering Authority, such person has to be treated as ‘owner’ for all purposes of the Motor Vehicle Act.  As per the Surveyor’s Report dated 11.11.2011, it can be clearly seen that the Registration Certificate has been verified by the Surveyor with the original.  The copy of the Registration Certificate has also been placed on the record.  There is no basis to state that the ownership of the vehicle does not rest with the petitioner.  The invoice of repair generated by the Trump Motors was in the name of petitioner.  The premium for the insurance policy and the loan installments were being paid by the Petitioner even after the alleged date of sale as submitted by the Respondents.  If the petitioner had no interest/ownership in the vehicle, the petitioner would not be servicing any such obligation for the benefit of another party.  As per the ‘Limitations as to use” clause in the insurance policy, it has been noted that the policy will cover all uses EXCEPT hire or reward, carriage of goods, organized racing, pace making, speed testing, reliability trails and/or used in connection with motor trade.  The Respondents have not lead any evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was being used in any of the prohibited usages in order to validly claim that the policy stood contravened. The same has also been taken note of by the District Forum.  Merely because the vehicle has been driven for a long distance in a short period of time, the Respondents have basis their belief claimed that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.  Extensive driving of private vehicle cannot be deemed to make said vehicle a commercial vehicle. The case of the respondents hinges on their own external investigator’s report.  The affidavit of the investigator has also not been placed on record.  

8.2     On the other hand respondents contended that the respondents deputed Mr. Milan Kumar to investigate into various aspects of the ownership and use of the vehicle.  It was revealed that Ram Singh had misrepresented the facts while taking the insurance and while applying for the claim.  The petitioner sold the vehicle to Rajvir on 11.04.2011 which is prior to taking insurance w.e.f. 26.04.2011 onwards.  He had also received the full consideration thereof.  The vehicle was running as a taxi with R. Sangam Tour & Travels, Pilani.  Vehicle had done approx.. 1,09,299 kms. Which works out to about 227 kms. a day which is highly improbable for a private vehicle and reinforces that it was being used for commercial purpose against the use as per vehicle registration and insurance.  Affidavit dated 11.04.2011 of Ram Singh for sale of vehicle in favour of the vehicle purchaser has been filed by the respondents on 09.07.2019.  The policy specifically was issued  for a private car.  Policy has a special provision/exclusion as “Limitations as to use: The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose OTHER THAN a) Hire & Reward….. This, it excludes the commercial use, specifically.”  Considering the breaches of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and also the insurance policy as for the use of the vehicle and also due to absence of insurable interest in the vehicle, the respondents repudiated the claim.   The petitioner has approached this Commission with false and frivolous contentions and ha s deliberately concealed material fats not only from the respondents while taking the insurance but also from the Consumer Fora.  This smacks of mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.  Having sold the vehicle, the Petitioner does not have any insurable interest in the subject vehicle and he is not entitled to the claim from the insurer. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments in support of their contentions. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prasad Chowdhury [RP/437/2016; decided on 16.5.2016], (ii) Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. vs. Nirmal Singh [2019 SCC OnLine 541]; (iii) Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sombir [2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2082]; Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar [(2018) 3SCC 1]. 

9.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and the rival contentions of the parties.  The main reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the respondent/insurance company is that the petitioner does not have the ownership of the insured vehicle hence, does not have any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident and the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes. According to respondent/insurance company, the policy was issued for a private car and there were limitations as to use, which excludes commercial use.  Here, it is interesting to note that in its written arguments, the respondent has not only contended that the petitioner having sold the vehicle does not have insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident and thus is not entitled to the claim under the policy from the insurer, but has also contended that the buyer of the vehicle on the other hand does not have any privity of contract with the insurance company as neither the registration nor the insurance policy is in his name.  Hence, the respondent/insurance company is not willing to accept the claim of either the petitioner who they allege has sold the vehicle and hence has no insurable interest nor to the purchaser on the ground of lack of privity of contract. Of course in the instant case, the purchaser has not lodged any claim.  The petitioner has also contended that the surveyor has verified his original Registration Certificate (RC) and that the invoice of repair generated by the Triumph Motors, Sikar was in the name of the petitioner and the payment for it was also made by the petitioner.  Further, the premium for the insurance policy and loan instalments were being paid by the petitioner even after the alleged dates of sale as submitted by the respondent.  If the petitioner had no interest/ownership in the vehicle, the petitioner would not be servicing any such obligation for the benefit of another party. With regard to the ownership of the vehicle at the time of insurance, notwithstanding that the petitioner has sold the vehicle in question but considering that at the time of accident the registration certificate of the vehicle continued to be in petitioner’s name, he is to be treated as owner of the vehicle in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 1.  In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “Having regard to definition of "owner" under S. 2(30) of MV Act, 1988, held, the person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered (i.e. whose name is reflected in records of Registering Authority) would be treated as "owner" of vehicle for purposes of MV Act-Only where a person is a minor, the guardian of that minor would be treated as owner, and where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation or is under requisition, the person in possession of vehicle under that agreement or under requisition is treated as owner. …….. Considering the principle underlying the provisions of S. 2(30) of new MV Act, held, where a registered owner of vehicle (like R-1 herein) despite transferring/selling his vehicle to another person continues to be reflected in records of Registering Authority as owner of that vehicle, he would be treated as owner of the vehicle for purposes of MV Act….”  Hence, in the present case, the petitioner has an insurable interest, being the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and having a valid insurance policy in his name at that time. 

10.     As regards second contention of the respondent/insurance company about the vehicle being used for commercial purpose, the respondent company contends that the vehicle had done approximately 1,09,299 kms. which works out to about 227 kms. a day which is highly improbable for a private vehicle and reinforces that it was being used for commercial purpose.  The respondent further contended that the vehicle was running as a taxi with R. Sangam Tour & Travels, Pilani.  However, no evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle in question was used for commercial purposes in violation of the exclusion clause/limitation as to use under the policy.  The petitioner contended that throughout the proceedings he has stated that the vehicle in question was used for private and family purposes and has argued that merely because the vehicle has been driven for a long distance in a short span cannot be the reason for respondent to conclude that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes.  Extensive driving of private vehicle cannot be deemed to make the said vehicle a commercial vehicle.  While it was natural for the Insurance Company to suspect that on account of extensive use i.e. about 227 kms. a day, it was perhaps used for commercial purpose, but for disallowing the claim on this ground, the insurance company has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was indeed being used for commercial purpose, which they have not been able to do. Hence, we tend to agree with these contentions of petitioner in this regard. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 455 that “……Insurance Policy must be read holistically so as to give effect to reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries-  it must be interpreted in a commercially sensible manner- coverage clauses to be read broadly, and ambiguity, if any, to be resolved in favour of insured-exclusions to be read narrowly.” 

11.     In view of the foregoing, we find that the action of insurance company in repudiating the claim of the petitioner was not correct and State Commission went wrong in allowing the Appeal and setting aside of the order of the District Forum. Hence, the order of the State Commission is set aside and order of the District Forum is restored. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly with cost of Rs.5,000/-, to the petitioner herein, to be paid over and above the amount/compensation/costs payable as per the District Forum’s order.

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.