Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)

(1)               This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/12/2003 in Consumer Complaint No.340/2002 (Smt.Navanita A. Patel Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, thereby partly allowing the complaint of the present respondent with directions to the opponent (present appellant) to pay an amount of `53,017/- with 9%  p.a. together with compensation of `3,500/- and the cost of complaint `1,500/-.  Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant insurance company preferred this appeal on the ground that the respondent/complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by carrying passengers without any permit at the time of accident of the insured Swaraj Mazda Tempo.  The said vehicle was used for hire and reward as offence registered in the concerned police station.  Breach of conditions resulted into repudiation of the claim for damage occurred to the insured vehicle.  The learned District Forum overlooked the breach of the conditions of policy and allowed the consumer complaint of the respondent. 

(2)               Heard the learned advocate for the appellant.  Respondent/complainant and her advocate preferred to remain absent at the time of hearing.  Perused the record and documents tendered by the parties.  Admittedly, Swaraj Mazda Tempo owned by the respondent/complainant was insured with the appellant insurance company which met with an accident on 04/05/2001.  The complainant diligently informed and claimed `70,690/- towards the damage incurred on account of repairs of the tempo.  However, the appellant insurance company repudiated the claim on 14/03/2002 on the ground of breach of terms & conditions of policy.  The said truck was carrying persons at the time of accident.  However, the opponent insurance company could not prove that these persons were passengers and they had paid fare to the respondent/complainant.  The learned District Forum appreciated all the documents placed before it and came to the conclusion that the respondent/complainant is entitled to receive the insurance claim on the non-standard basis as the persons were being carried on at the time of accident.  The appellant insurance company failed to adduce any evidence to disprove as to why the non-standard claim could not be allowed.  We do not find any merit in the appeal.  The impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot, therefore, be faulted with.  Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to take a different view than what is taken by the District Forum.  We proceed to pass the following order. 

ORDER

(1)     Appeal is dismissed.

(2)     Both the parties to bear their own costs. 

Pronounced on 17^th February, 2012.