1. Mr. Bhim Singh, complainant was again sought to be served under the order dated 26.12.2025. The office report indicates that service has been effected and the item has been delivered on 16.01.2026. It is therefore evident that the service is complete, but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest this revision petition.

2. The petition was entertained on 22.11.2022 and an interim order was passed staying the execution proceedings. The interim order has been continued till further orders, whereafter the matter awaited service on the respondent and inspite of service no one appeared. Therefore orders were passed to proceed ex parte.

3. Nonetheless, as a matter of abundant caution we had issued fresh notices on 26.12.2025 as the respondent had failed to appear.

4. The complaint was filed after the insurance claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company in respect of the loss to a vehicle, that was sought to be indemnified on account of an accident in the intervening night of the 09/10.03.2015, while the vehicle was being driven. The accident was also reported to the police and FIR No. 25 of 2015 was lodged. The case was investigated and a report under Section 173 of CrPC as it then existed was furnished wherein it has been categorically recited that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver.

5. With this evidence on record the Insurance Company contested the complaint also alleging breach of the policy due to overloading, but the District Commission allowed the complaint holding as if the accident had occurred only on account of the overloading of gratuitous passengers in the vehicle ignoring the evidence of rash and negligent driving. The District Commission further found that even if the driver Vijay Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license, yet the said deficit cannot be made a cause to repudiate, in as much as, the onus lay on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license.

6. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,89,000/- that was claimed was found to be admissible, but on a non-standard basis the complaint was allowed directing a payment of Rs.2,91,250/-.

7. Aggrieved the Insurance Company went up in appeal before the Himachal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. The State Commission held that in a case of overloading, the Insurance Company cannot totally repudiate the claim and a non-standard basis has to be applied, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536. It was further held that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh 004 (3) SCC 297, insurer cannot be absolved of the liability merely because the driver was not holding a valid driving license, unless it is proved that there was negligence. The State Commission concluded that the Insurance Company had not produced any evidence to establish that the complainant was having knowledge of the alleged fake license and despite knowledge of the same the complainant allowed the driver to drive the vehicle in question.

8. Be that as it may, the major ground on which the complaints have been allowed is that mere carrying on gratuitous passengers cannot be a ground to repudiate the entire claim and the quantum was reduced on non-standard basis to the extent of 75%.

9. What we find from the record that the police report under Section 173 CrPC was very much on record and it categorically states that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. To say that there was no evidence led by the Insurance Company was therefore not a correct approach either on the part of the District Commission or on the part of the State Commission to arrive at the conclusion that the vehicle upturned only on account of overloading. We are therefore unable to appreciate the said findings recorded by the fora below that have failed to take into account the entire evidence on record.

10. We therefore set aside the order of the State Commission dated 26.03.2021 and remand the matter back to the State Commission for a decision afresh after taking into account the entire evidence on record. The State Commission shall also look into the specific terms and conditions of the policy regarding its alleged breach by carrying passengers beyond the capacity of the vehicle, which was otherwise also a Light Goods Carrier and not a passenger vehicle.

11. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 01.07.2026.