RAKESH SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order dated 2.11.93 passed by the District Forum, Gwalior in Case No.306/93.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the appellant. Briefly the complainant's case was that a jeep belonging to the complainant was insured with the opponent, that during the period the policy of insurance was in force the jeep met with an accident and the claim for compensation in terms the police made by the complainant was repudiated by the opponent-Insurance Company. The complainant therefore filed this complaint. The claim was resisted by the opponents mainly on the ground that at the material time the jeep was not used for a purpose covered by the insurance policy. It was contended that the clause regarding limitations as to use specifically provided that the policy did not cover use for hire. It was averred that on investigation by the Investigator appointed by the opponents it was found that at the material time the jeep in question was hired by one Dr. Agrawal and it was during the period of hire that the jeep met with an accident. It was, therefore, contended that as the policy specifically provided that the policy would not cover the risk if the jeep was used for hire, the opponent-Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. This contention raised on behalf of the opponent was upheld by the District Forum and the complaint was dismissed. Hence the complainant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The finding given by the District Forum that at the time of the accident the jeep was given by the complainant to Dr. Agrawal on hire is substantiated by the material on record. The repudiation of claim by the opponent is based on the report of the Investigator and the statements recorded by him during investigation. The report of the accident was also lodged at the Police Station by Dr. Agrawal. In his statement recorded by the Investigator Dr. Agrawal had clearly stated that the jeep was taken on hire by him when it met with an accident. When the policy of insurance specifically provided the limitation as to use, it must be held that the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was in good faith after consideration of all relevant facts. The complainant thus failed to make out any case of deficiency in service by the opponents. We, therefore, see no cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.