Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15.06.2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No.79/2010, Rajendra Bhairu Bhosale V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (in short ‘Forum below). The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the original Complainant has preferred this appeal. (2) Undisputed facts are that, the Appellant/original Complainant had insured his Mahindra Max Jeep bearing No.MH-11-AK 3042 with the Respondent/Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company. The said vehicle met with an accident on 29.09.2009. Insurance claim was made, but, it stood rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding any effective or valid driving licence and secondly that, in breach of the terms of the Insurance, the vehicle was driven on hire and reward basis. The Forum below accepted the repudiation as valid and thus, holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, dismissed the consumer complaint. (3) We heard Mr.D.D. Rananaware, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the Respondent and perused the record. (4) According to the Appellant, there were passengers in his vehicle at the time of accident, but those were his friends to whom he had given lift and they were not the passengers on hire and reward basis. Insurance Company relied upon the first information report of the accident given by the appellant himself wherein it is specifically admitted that at the time of accident the vehicle was used on hire and reward basis carrying the passengers therein. This statement stands on different footing and considering the clear-cut admission of the appellant, said statement is to be accepted. It is pertinent to note that the appellant even faces criminal prosecution filed by the police for carrying the passengers in the vehicle contrary to the permit issued for the said vehicle. (5) Though the passengers in the vehicle stated before the police about availing the service of the appellant on hire and reward basis and they were traveling as passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident and even though, two of them being injured, filed against the appellant claims in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; later on, two of them filed affidavits stating otherwise. In the given circumstances, this being clearly an after thought, such affidavits cannot be accepted. Besides that, in view of the clear admission on the part of the appellant in the First Information Report about taking those persons as passengers on hire and reward basis, there such affidavits also diminishes their evidentiary value. Forum below rightly ignored the same. (6) Appellant also failed to show that at the time of accident, he was holding any effective and valid driving licence to drive the class of vehicle in question. Thus, the repudiation on the part of the Insurance Company on that count also could not be faulted with. (7) Thus, we find no fault with the impugned order and therefore, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) However, in the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
| 
