PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1396 of 2011, vide which appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat dated 18.08.2011 was accepted and consumer complaint in question, dismissed.  The District Forum, Sonepat vide their order dated 18.8.2011 in consumer complaint No. 517 of 2010 had allowed the said complaint; the original complainant has therefore, filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant / petitioner is the owner of the Tata vehicle ACE-E-3 bearing Number HR-67-7492  and the same was insured with the respondent / opposite party vide policy No. 15019923334104992 with effect from 31.07.2009 to 30.07.2010.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2010 against the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-75-J 9880 and an FIR No. 66/10 dated 11.02.2010 under Section 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC was registered with the police.  The insurance company was also informed on telephone after the accident.  The petitioner got the vehicle repaired from an authorized repair shop and a bill of Rs. 1,64,033/- was paid.  However, the respondent refused to make payment of the repair bill stating vide its letters dated 07.07.2010 and 26.07.2010 that the loss did not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy.  The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and as per the survey report, the loss was assessed as Rs. 90,000/-.  Further, as per the report of the investigator, it was revealed that five passengers were travelling in the goods-carrying vehicle at the time of accident, in addition to the driver, whereas seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate was 1+1 only.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question with the District Forum, Sonepat requesting for payment of Rs. 1,64,033/- as spent on repair charges plus Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony / harassment and legal fees etc.  The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 18.08.2011 and directed to settle the claim on ‘non-standard-basis’ upto 75% of the amount of loss after taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 1,64,033/- and the said settled amount was directed to be paid to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs. 2,000/- was allowed for mental agony / harassment etc.  However, the State Commission vide impugned order reversed the order passed by the District Forum in appeal, saying that there was violation of the policy in question, because five passengers were travelling in the goods-carrying vehicle at the time of accident in addition to the driver, whereas seating capacity of the vehicle as per registration certificate was 1+1.  The learned State Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr., 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP).  It is stated in the said judgment that the terms and conditions of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.  It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

3.     At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that offending vehicle was directly responsible for the accident in question.  The petitioner was entitled to get the claim as allowed by the District Forum because they had spent a sum of Rs. 1,64,033/- for the repair of the vehicle.  The learned counsel further stated that the order passed by the District Forum was based upon the case law as cited in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati, IV (NC) 315 (NC) and the case B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company as reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 2054.  On the other hand, the facts of the case relied upon by the State Commission i.e. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. (Supra), are not applicable to the present case.

4.     The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a number of judgments on the issue made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Commission.  In Naresh Kumar Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the National Commission in their order dated 10.10.2012 passed in Revision Petition No. 2316 of 2012, stated that carrying of 20 passengers amounted to violation of the terms of the policy when the vehicle was permitted to carry only two persons including the driver.  The learned counsel also invited our attention to the judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan decided on 19.08.1999 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 3252, saying that the respondent was carrying hazardous and highly inflammable articles, whereas the permit was to transport only non-hazardous articles and hence it was a violation of the insurance policy.  Further, there are other judgments passed in Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd., & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as reported in AIR 2009 SC 2493 and Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International bas reported in 2013 (1) Scale 410, in which the same principles has been stated that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question have to be observed.

5.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  From the facts of the case, it is very clear and denied nowhere that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was carrying six passengers, although it was permitted to carry only two passengers, including the driver and carrying three times the number of passengers permitted, the driver cannot have proper control on the vehicle.  It is very clear therefore, that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in question.  We therefore, tend to agree with the order passed by the State Commission based on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. (Supra) that the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.  We therefore, hold that this petition is without any force and the same is ordered to be dismissed upholding the orders passed by the learned State Commission with no order as to costs.