- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 19.1.2000 in Complaint No. 149/1999 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.
(2.) UNDISPUTED relevant facts stated in brief are : that the complainant/appellant is the owner of Truck No. MBT 9122. It was duly insured by the complainant/appellant with respondent No. 1 for the period from 11.3.1997 to 10.3.1998. It is further not in dispute that the said truck met with an accident on 22.4.1997 at Bordih Dam in Mahamaya Mines. It was also not in dispute in this appeal that 22 labourers were travelling by the said truck at the time of accident. The complainant had intimated about the incident to the respondent/insurer as well as to the police. A Claim Case No. 38/1997 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was also filed. It was held by the Claims Tribunal that there was breach of terms of policy by the complainant/appellant, hence in the said claim case, though the complainant truck owner and driver were held liable, but the respondent/insurer was exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation, It is also not in dispute that the respondent/insurer repudiated the claim of the complainant/appellant on 13.11.1998 on the ground that at the time of accident, passengers were being carried in the insured vehicle.
(3.) THE complainant in his complaint raised the grievance about the repudiation of the claim as above by the respondent/insurer. According to him, he suffered a loss of Rs. 35,000/ - on account of damage caused to the truck. It was also averred that the truck of the complainant was carrying labourers as per usual practice as there was no other vehicle for the transportation of the labourers and that no fare was recovered from them. The complaint was resisted by the respondent/insurer. According to written version filed by the respondent, since the truck was carrying passengers, there was breach of terms of policy by the complainant/appellant. It was also averred that in Claim Case No. 38/1997 filed by L.Rs. of one of the deceased, the respondent/insurer has been exonerated from liability on the ground that there was breach of terms of policy by the owner. The respondents, therefore, averred that this complaint by the owner was not competent.;