1.       Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 07.07.2016, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 138 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 18.03.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmaur at Nahan (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 32 of 2014.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company, namely, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., in not indemnifying the loss suffered by the Complainant on account of the insured Tipper, which had met with an accident on 19.10.2013, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹4,73,060/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till actual payment, as also ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as litigation costs, within 45 days of the said order.

2.       The ground, on which the State Commission has reversed the order, passed by the District Forum, and dismissed the Complaint, is that at the time of accident the vehicle in question did not have the route permit and, therefore, the same being a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. 

3.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that since the Tipper in question was only being driven to the workshop for routine servicing, the State Commission was not justified in holding that the same was being plied without a route permit.

4.       Having regard to the fact that the Tipper in question was purchased on 29.08.2013 and had met with an accident only on 19.10.2013, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with learned Counsel that for over one and a half months, it was not being used for any purpose. 

5.       In that view of the matter, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited And Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 324, wherein it has been held that using a vehicle on public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but also tantamounts to fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy document, it cannot be held that the order impugned in this Revision Petition suffers from any jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Commission in exercise of the Revisional Jurisdiction.

6.       Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.