IMPORTANT POINT
Conclusion drawn by an investigating officer of the police, authorizes to conduct investigation in criminal cases, cannot be brushed aside lightly particularly when it is corroborated by the report of the surveyor, appointed by the insurance company.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.10.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G) (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in Complaint Case No.183/2010, whereby the complaint of the respondent herein, was allowed and the appellant herein has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000 to the respondent/complainant by way of compensation on account of damages to the insured vehicle within a period of one month. Apart from it, it has further been directed to the appellant to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation.

2. It is not in dispute that vehicle Maruti Van No.C.G.4B/6737 was insured by the appellant Insurance Company as a Private vehicle for a period between 18.7.2008 to 17.7.2009 showing the respondent/complainant as it’s registered owner. The said vehicle suffered a road accident on 2.6.2009 and the driver of the vehicle as well as one passenger died in the incident.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that in the road accident, the vehicle in question suffered extensive damages and the repairer estimated cost of repairing at Rs.2,08,243. A claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by it, so a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.

4. The defence of the Insurance Company before the District Forum was that the complainant was using the vehicle for hire or reward, though it was insured as a Private vehicle and thus, there was material violation of the terms of the insurance policy and so, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant by way of compensation on account of damages to the insured vehicle.

5. Learned District Forum, did not agree with the defence taken by the Insurance Company and awarded the amount as estimated by the Loss Assessor & Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company.

6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vinod Deshmukh, is that there was material violation of the terms of the insurance policy and it was duly proved by the Insurance Company that vehicle in question, was used for hire or reward. He submitted that this was the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency appointed by the Insurance Company, and the same conclusion was drawn by the Police while conducting investigation in the criminal case. He submitted that it was duly proved by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was used for hire and so, the Insurance Company, was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant/respondent.

8. To counter this argument, counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant, as well as person, who used the vehicle at the relevant time, both have filed their affidavits before the District Forum and have stated that the vehicle in question, was not given on payment of any money, but as the close relative of Manikram Chandrawanshi died and so his family was required to go urgently to attend his last rites and therefore, on account of friendship with owner of the vehicle Santosh Kumar Meshream, the insured vehicle was provided for their journey, which suffered accident in which driver as well as mother of Manikram Chandrawanshi died. He submitted that these are statements on oath of the persons, who were having first hand information regarding the incident and both of them have denied the use of vehicle in question for hire or reward. He further submitted that statements recorded by the Police were not filed before the District Forum to show that somebody has stated before the Police that vehicle was used for hire. It has been submitted by counsel for the respondent that the District Forum has not committed any mistake in believing the statement of respondent Santosh Kumar Meshram and Manikram Chandrawanshi and, so, the award passed by the District Fo