This revision by the opposite party - Insurance Co. is directed against the order dated 15.4.2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur partly allowing appeal against the order dated 29.9.2007 of a District Forum and directing the Insurance Co. to pay after deducting 25% from the amount of Rs. 45,299.95 as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of complaint to the respondent/ complainant. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

          Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass.  Respondent’s jeep bearing No. RJ 02 C 4581 was insured with the petitioner- Insurance Co. as a private vehicle for the period from 1.12.2005 to 30.11.2006.  It capsized near Milkhapur highway on 3.11.2006 and was damaged.   On being intimated of the incident the petitioner appointed a surveyor.  However, the claim made under the policy by the respondent was repudiated by the letter dated 4.4.2007 on the following ground:-

“The policy does not cover “ Any accidental loss, damage and/ or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured here- in is being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitation as to use”.  The limitation as to use, as prescribed in the schedule of the policy, provides that the policy covers use of vehicle for any purpose other than HIRE OR REWARD.”

Thereafter, complaint was filed by the respondent which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version mainly on the grounds similar to that taken in the repudiation letter dated 4.4.2007.  It was stated that the jeep was insured as a private vehicle.

          Short submission advanced by Shri S.M. Tripathi, Adv. for the petitioner- Insurance Co. is that the insured jeep at the time of incident was being used  for Hire / Reward otherwise than in accordance with the limitation as to use provided in the policy and the State Commission thus acted erroneously in passing the impugned order.  Reliance has been placed on the decision in Jagdeesh Singh  Vs.  United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2007) CPJ 160 (NC),  based upon which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.  As is manifest from the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2007, the District Forum having taken note of the contents of FIR No. 435 of 2006 dated 3.11.2006 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 404 IPC at P.S. Tijara on the basis of statement of Pannil Lal, has returned the finding that the insured jeep was being used at the time of incident for carrying passengers on Hire/Reward in violation of the condition of limitation as to use, which finding has not been disturbed in appeal by the State Commission.  Considering the ratio in Jagdeesh Singh’s case (Supra) and the said finding, the State Commission was not legally justified in setting aside the order of District Forum and passing the order under challenge.  It was immaterial that the surveyor  had  assessed the loss at  Rs. 45,299.95.  Impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 

Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 15.4.2008 is set aside and complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.