HARISH YADAV Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant -appellant against the order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the District Forum, Jhalawar in complaint No. 4/2000, by which the complaint of the complainant -appellant was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant -appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents/National Insurance Company Ltd before the District Forum, Jhalawar on 18.2.2000 inter alia stating that the complainant appellant had got his Tata Sumo bearing registration No. RJ.17.C.775 insured with the respondents/Insurance Company for the period 1.11.1998 to 30.11.1999 for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000. It was further stated in the complaint that a close relative of the complainant -appellant Shri Gokul Pd. Sharma had taken the said vehicle of the complainant -appellant as he was going from Aklera to Keladevi for paying a holy visit but when he was returning back from Keladevi on 2.3.1999, the vehicle had met with an accident and the report of that incident was lodged with the Police Station, Mandana bearing FIR No. 33/99, District Kota and as a result of the accident the vehicle was damaged and information of the incident was also given by the complainant -appellant to the office of the respondents/Insurance Company and spot surveyor was appointed and the vehicle in question was got repaired at the authorised service centre at Kota and since a sum of Rs. 1,83,135 were spent in getting the repair of the vehicle, therefore, that was claimed, but the claim of the complainant -appellant was repudiated by the respondents/Insurance Company through letter dated 10.3.2000 on the ground that at the time of accident since the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes on hire basis and since by that act, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and thus, claim was not payable. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.

(3.) A reply was filed by the respondents /Insurance Company before the District Forum, Jhalawar on 7.5.2001 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 10.3.2000. It was further replied that it was wrong to say that any surveyor was appointed and since the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle and since it was being used for commercial use, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated and complaint be dismissed.