(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana ('the State Commission', for short) in First Appeal No.1366 of 2010 whereby the State Commission has upset the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Faridabad in Consumer Complaint No.293 of 2006 and allowed the appeal filed by the OP insurance company, respondent herein. The District Forum had earlier accepted the complaint of the petitioner herein vide its aforesaid order in terms of the following directions:-
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant/petitioner got his vehicle bearing registration no.HR63-6854 insured from the OP/respondent insurance company for the period 20.07.2005 to 19.07.2006. During the period of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 08.10.2005 for which FIR was registered with the concerned police station and necessary intimation was given to the insurance company. As per the version of the complainant, the vehicle was got repaired from Shree Balaji Motors Palwal which gave an estimate of Rs.3,85,158/- for its repairs. The complainant submitted his claim to the insurance company which appointed a surveyor to assess the damage and loss to the vehicle. The surveyor in his report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,49,000/- on repair basis but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. Challenging the action of the OP insurance company, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the consumer complaint. The OP insurance company resisted the complaint by filing a written statement justifying the repudiation on the ground that during the investigation carried out by the surveyor it was revealed that the vehicle in question was being used as a commercial vehicle whereas the complainant had got the vehicle insured as a private car. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OP insurance company pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint on non-standard basis and granted relief as reproduced above to the complainant. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OP insurance company challenged the same by filing an appeal before the State Commission, which came to be allowed by the State Commission by its impugned order. It is in these circumstances that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant.
(3.) We have heard learned Sh. Gagan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. Rajesh K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent and perused the record.