ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. GAYATRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 4.4.2000 passed in Case No.23/1997 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (for short the 'district Forum') whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not making the payment of own damage claim of vehicle bearing registration No. MP-10 A-1100 comprehensively insured covering the risk from 14.2.1996 to 13.2.1997, met with an accident on 16.6.1996 was allowed holding that the repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 30.12.1996 on the ground that the vehicle was registered for private use was in use of commercial purpose carrying fare paying passengers was not established. Hence the Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs.26,803/- the amount of own damage claim as assessed by the Surveyor and to pay interest thereon at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of repudiation along with Rs.500/- as costs of the proceedings.

(2.) After hearing Mr. Hemant Sharma, learned Counsel for appellant, the Insurance Company and Mr. V. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the respondent and on reappraisal of evidence in record we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the District Forum that at the time of accident the vehicle was in use for commercial purpose to establish the use of the vehicle for commercial purpose except the report of the Investigator Vinod Kumar Bohra dated 4.11.1996, no material was placed even the affidavit of the Investigator was not filed to receive the report in evidence. It is well settled that when the Insurance Company avoids its liability on the alleged breach of the condition of the policy it has to discharge its burden to prove the same by legal evidence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Insurance Company also could not point out from the record that at the time of the accident vehicle was in use for commercial purpose. In the circumstances, the finding of the District Forum in our opinion does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the District Forum rightly held that the repudiation of the claim was not on justifiable grounds.