RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. ALAUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against order dtd. 7/7/2015 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1689/2013, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party was dismissed.

(2.) Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that the Complainant is owner of Bolero D.I. U.P. 56 F 6050. The vehicle was insured by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party under Policy No. 1909712311000676 valid from 11/10/2011 to 10/10/2012 as a private vehicle for an insured sum of Rs.5,12,537.00. During the subsistence of the Policy, the vehicle met with an accident at the Railway Crossing with a moving vehicle, on 31/1/2012, resulting in complete damage of the vehicle and death of driver Nabi Hussain. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party Insurance Company regarding the accident and presented a claim for insurance, but the same has not been paid. The Complainant also sent notice through his Advocate, on 6/8/2012, but there was no reply. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party, the Complainant approached District Forum with following prayer:

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement wherein it was submitted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for carriage of passengers for hire and reward, while the vehicle was registered and insured as a private vehicle. The use of vehicle was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The Opposite Party was, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. As soon as the Insurance Company got information that the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms of the Policy, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant, vide letter dtd. 6/7/2012, stating that the vehicle was registered as private vehicle but was used for commercial purpose.