Appeal No.375/04

Mustak Khan V. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors.


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri D.M.Mathur,counsel for the appellant

Shri Virendra Saraswat,counsel for the respondents



Date of judgement: 5.3.2009

This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 20.1.04 passed by the District Forum, Camp Jaipur in complaint no.162/03,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was allowed in the manner that the respondents insurance company was directed to pay 75% amount of Rs.92856/-, that comes to Rs.68,642/- with interest @ 9% p.a and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost.


It arises in the following circusmtances:


That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 26.5.98 interalia stating that he has got his commander jeep bearing no.RJ.18.C.1211 insured with the respondents insurance company for the period 25.6.97 to 24.6.98 and the said jeep had met with an accident on 21.7.97 and jeep had damaged and the damage was to the tune of Rs.1,01,000/-. Since the amount was not paid, therefore,the present the

2


present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 22.2.99 and in the reply same pleas were taken which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 31.3.05 and the case of the respondents insurance company was that since at the time of accident many persons were sitting in the jeep and the same was being used for commercial purposes though the vehicle which was insured was for private use,therefore,there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and claim was not settled and it was further stated that the surveyor appointed by the respondents insurance company,Shri Dhamija had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.92856/- and not as claimed by the complainant appellant and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 20.1.04,had allowed the complaint taking into consideration that since the vehicle in question was being used for hire purposes,therefore,the claim was treated as sub standard and from the amount of Rs.92856/-as assessed by the surveyor, only 75% amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant appellant by the respondents insurance company.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that treating the claim as sub standard was not justified as the vehicle in question was not being used for hire purposes and thus appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.

3

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On file,there is an investigation report dated 3.2.98 prepared by Shri J.S.Gambhir,the investigator appointed by the respondents insurance company who after recording the statements of the witnessess that the jeep in question had met with an accident on 21.7.97 and many persons of different communities were in the jeep and the driver Mishri Khan had died in the accident and the jeep was going from Jaipur to Chaksu and the accident was caused by the tanker and 5 persons had died due to that accident and thus at the time of accident,the jeep was being used for commercial purposes or taxi.


When this being the position,it could easily be said that no doubt,the accident was caused by the tanker but the vehicle in question was being used for hire purposes and by doing so,the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and if for that the claim was treated as sub standard,no illegality was committed by the District Forum in passing the impugned order.


For reasons as stated above,we see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality or perversity and they are liable to be confirmed one and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


The result is that this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed.



Member President