Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan, President — This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana directing the appellant United India Insurance Company to pay Rs. 13,678/- with 15% interest and cost to the respondent-complainant Balasangji Somaji Thakore, holding that the appellant is liable under the insurance policy to pay the respondent for the damage to the taxi jeep under the provisions of the insurance policy. The learned Forum rejected the contention of the appellant that the respondent had carried 10 passengers in the taxi jeep which violated the provisions of the permit issued by the R.T.O. and in turn committed breach of the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to repudiate the contract and not liable to pay any amount under insurance policy.

2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was owner of the taxi jeep No GRW 9472 at the relevant time and was holding permit issued by the R.T.O. The respondent was proceeding with the jeep in which about 10 passengers were taken from Jotana to Mehsana and on the way the rear wheel of the jeep came out and accident took place and damage was caused to the jeep. One Baluji Kacharaji filed the complaint on 19.6.91 and police had prepared panchnama at the place of accident and the damage caused to the jeep. The respondent then claimed for the amount for the damage to the jeep but the appellant by letter dated November 28,1991 informed that on perusal of the FIR it was observed that 10 persons were travelling in the jeep at the material time and that was the breach of the R.T.O. norms as well as the permit which was issued only for ONGC contract. The appellant repudiated the liability and treated the claim as “No Claim”.

3. The main contention of the appellant before the District Forum was, the breach of the terms of the permit issued by the R.T.O. and consequently the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant could repudiate the contract and, therefore, the liability of the appellant did not arise to pay the damages to the respondent.

4. Shri M.V. Surti, the learned Advocate for the appellant has mainly asserted the same contentions before us. It is also contented that the learned District Forum has not clearly stated the reason for awarding the amount of Rs. 13,678/- .

5. The jeep was to be used for the purpose of taxi and, therefore, the permit was given for “jeep taxi”. In the permit the purpose of journey was “ONGC”. It is also stated that the sitting capacity was 5 + 1 i.e. 6 persons. From the complaint filed by Balaji Kacharaji it transpires that about 10 persons were there as passengers in the jeep. In the insurance policy it is stated that the vehicle for which the insurance was taken is “commercial vehicle” and “passenger carrying vehicle”. It is also stated that the licensed carrying capacity including the driver was 6. In the insurance policy about the limitation as to use it is stated that” use only for carriage of passengers in accordance with the permits (contract carriage or stage carriage) issued within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also stated that the policy does not cover (1) Use for organised racing, pace-making, reliability trial or speed testing and (2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle.

From the part of the copy of the policy which is only produced on the record, it is clear that the jeep was to be used as taxi for carrying passengers either as the contract carriage or stage carriage. It was used as contract carriage at the time of the accident and that was within the use allowed under the permit. It is not the contention of the appellant that the two situations as discussed above for which the coverage of the policy is not undertaken did arise. There is, therefore, no breach of any of the conditions of the policy. It is submitted that in t