K BALAIAH Vs. G THIMMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -AGGRIEVED by the order in CD No. 181 of 2004 on the file of District Forum-Anathapur the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the father of the deceased K. Subramanyam and opposite party No. l is the owner of the jeep which was insured with opposite party No. 2. On 5. 4. 1999 at about 7. 30 p. m. when the deceased was travelling in the said jeep, it met with an accident as a result of which Mr. K. Subramanyam sustained severe injuries and died. A case was registered and post-mortem was also conducted. Opposite party No. l, the owner of the jeep had taken personal accident policy with opposite party No. 2 and paid a premium of Rs. 450. The policy is valid from 7. 4. 1998 to 6. 4. 1999. The said personal accident policy covered the inmates of the jeep and opposite party No. 2 has to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on 3. 9. 2004 to settle the claim but did not receive any reply. Hence the complaint.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 filed counter contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the jeep was carrying passengers more than the capacity and, therefore, violated the policy conditions. Opposite party further contended that the driver is not having any driving licence to drive the jeep at the time of accident and that the vehicle was used for hire and, therefore, the repudiation of the policy is justified.