- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the District Forum, Sawai Madhopur in complaint No. 223/05 (252/2000), by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:
(3.) THAT the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent Insurance Company before the District Forum, Sawai Madhopur on 4.9.2000 inter alia stating that the Marshal jeep bearing No. RJ.34 C.0230 was got insured with the respondent Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3,70,000 for the period 30.1.1999 to 29.1.2000 and it was further stated in the complaint that on 4.6.99 when the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver Nand Kishore and the jeep in question had reached near Hindaun railway crossing, some persons had entered in the jeep as they were waiting for the bus and all of them were allowed to be seated in the jeep without charging and it was further stated in the complaint that the said jeep had met with an accident later on and the jeep was damaged and a sum of Rs. 1,46,328 was estimated for the damage of the vehicle and a claim was preferred by the complainant appellant to the office of the respondent Insurance Company, but that claim was repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company through letter dated 17.10.2000 inter alia stating that since at the time of accident,the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes though the vehicle was insured for private use and thus by that act, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the respondent Insurance Company before the District Forum on 19.1.2001 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 17.10.2000. Apart from that it was stated that Shri U.K. Bansal was appointed as spot Surveyor and later on Shri V.P. Bharadwaj was appointed as Surveyor who had submitted his report dated 3.8.1999 in which he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,49,776 and not as claimed by the complainant appellant . It was further stated in the reply that though the capacity of the jeep for passengers was 10 while at the time of accident 13 persons were sitting in the jeep, therefore, from every point of view there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.;