ORDER This revision petition has been filed by Dr.Dinesh Kumar Champaklal Parikh and others (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioners’) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in favour of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners had taken a personal accident car insurance policy in respect of their vehicle Ford Ikon No.GJ9M3131 from the Respondent/Insurance Company from 23.03.2005 to 22.03.2006. The said car met with an accident on 26.12.2005 in which one Mitul Maheshkumar Shah expired. The Petitioners thereafter filed a claim with the Respondent/Insurance Company which repudiated the same on the grounds that since the deceased, Mitul Maheshkumar Shah who expired, was neither the owner of the vehicle nor a paid driver at the time of the accident, as per the policy he is not entitled to get any insurance claim. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum which dismissed the same on the ground that it has not been proved that the deceased, Mitul Maheshkumar Shah was driving the said vehicle and that he was a paid driver of the Petitioners. Since as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the words “compulsory pay to owner/driver” have been used and the abovesaid deceased was neither the owner nor a paid driver, the Respondent/Insurance Company rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioners. Further, no Panchnama or police complaint had been filed which would have thrown more light as to in what capacity the deceased was traveling in the vehicle. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which while upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal further observed that even if the deceased was a paid driver of the Petitioners, as per the insurance policy, since no premium was taken in respect of the paid driver, the claim was not admissible and rightly rejected by the Respondent. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for both parties were present and made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner brought to our notice the modified Endorsement IMT–16 dated 04.10.2005 of the said Insurance Policy which reads as under: “In consideration of the payment of additional premium, it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injuries hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or the paid driver attendant or the cleaner and/or a person in the employ of the insured………” Counsel for Petitioner contended that the Fora below erred in not taking note of the above provision of this policy and repudiation on the grounds which were not in accordance with the insurance policy which clearly stated that the insurance policy would cover “any passenger”. Counsel for the Respondent essentially reiterated the stand taken by the Respondent/Insurance Company before the Fora below and stated that being courts of fact, the Fora below have correctly appreciated the evidence, particularly, since the Petitioners had not even filed a police report and in the absence of a post-mortem report. We have heard the learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. We note that the Respondent/Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that since the deceased, Mitul Maheshkumar Shah was neither a paid driver nor the owner of the vehicle, he was not entitled for compensation for personal accident insurance cover under the policy. This is totally contrary to the Respondent’s own Policy Endorsement (reproduced) which clearly covers “any passenger” in such eventualities. In view of this, Respondent/Insurance Company was totally unjustified in repudiating the claim. The learned Fora below erred in not taking into account this relevant endorsement of the policy. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Fora below and allow the revision petition. The Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay the Petitioner Rs.2 lakhs in respect of the deceased Mitul Maheshkumar Shah with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum, in terms of the insurance policy and Rs.3,000/- as costs within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 6% will be applicable on the entire amount from the date of default. …………..………………… (ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT ………….………………. (VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/ | 
