UMA SATISH VAIRAT Vs. SANGITA TANAJI NANAVARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal is exoneration of the Insurance Company.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that all the occupants in the offending car were friends of the owner of the offending car and they were going for the treatment and accident occurred. In the said accident, deceased and owner of the offending vehicle also died. Police recorded the statement of the wife of owner of the offending vehicle. In the said statement, she has stated that vehicle was taken on hire and reward basis and on that ground the Tribunal has held that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and exonerated Insurance Company which is not proper. Learned counsel further submitted that wife of owner of offending vehicle Mrs. Sangita Nanaware was not examined as a witness before the Tribunal. No evidence was produced on record to show that the offending car was taken on hire and reward basis. In spite of that, the Tribunal erroneously came to conclusion that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy which is erroneous, hence requested to allow the appeal.

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, to prove the defence, the Insurance company has examined its officer and police officer who recorded the statement of Mrs. Sangita Nanaware. Police officer has stated that he had recorded statement of Sangita. As per her say, the order passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid and no interference is required in it.