AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam, in O.P. No. 304/97. The opposite party is the appellant.
THE case of the complainant is that she is owner of the jeep bearing No. KL-3-B-3394 and had valid comprehensive coverage for the period from 26.5.1995 to 25.5.l996 issued by the Oriental Insurance Company. On 17.3.1996 morning while proceeding from Kottayam to Erattupetta alongwith 9 passengers, the jeep overturned and the driver and passengers sustained injuries and the jeep also got damaged. THE matter was reported to the opposite party who deputed a valuer. He inspected the vehicle and prepared a report. THE complainant paid Rs. 39,349.27 towards cost of spare parts and Rs. 3,954/- for purchasing a new battery and towards repairing charges he had to pay Rs. 24,010/-. Rs. 1,000/- was paid towards towing charges. THE complainant submitted a claim form to the opposite party who repudiated the claim. Hence a complaint was filed seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 68,313.27 together with interest @ 12% and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and cost. In the version filed by the opposite party the accident and insurance coverage were admitted. However it was contended that as per the police record 15 persons were travelling in the jeep and the opposite party was directed to clarify the same. The complainant sent a letter dated 18.11.1996 stating that there were only 9 persons in the jeep. That is not correct. The claim was repudiated as there was violation of policy conditions.
The District Forum based on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1996 SC 2054 held that repudiation on the ground that instead of permitted capacity of 11 persons at the time of accident the jeep carried 15 persons cannot be a reason for repudiating claim. In that view an order was passed directing the opposite party to settle the claim and pay compensation of Rs. 500/-.
FEELING aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the carrying of 15 persons instead of 11 was real cause for the accident. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no evidence to show that the incident took place as a result of jeep carrying 4 persons more than the permitted capacity. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above is squarely applicable to this case. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.