ORDER

M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member.—The present appeal is preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved with the judgement and order dated 16/02/2019 passed by the Ld. District consumer commission, Ahmedabad City (main) in the Case No. 36/2016.

2. The present appellants are the original opponents and the respondent is the original complainant in the judgement and order passed by the Ld. District Commission, Ahmedabad City (Main) in Complaint No. 36/2016. The parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case: The complainant’s husband Zuberbhai had purchased Mahindra SUV 500 bearing Registration No.GJ 09 BB 3871 and obtained vehicle insurance bearing Policy No.2011/400205/14/10088305/00/000 from the opponents for a period from 31/01/2015 to 30/01/2016 for IDV (Insured Declared Value for short) of Rs.11,92,500/- (Eleven Lakh Ninety- two Thousand five hundred) with zero depreciation.

4. The incident has taken place on 28/03/2015, when the complainant’s husband and his friends were travelling to Mumbai for offering prayers to Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati temple. During this journey complainant’s husband’s vehicle collided with the stationery vehicle lying in the middle of the road and due to sudden application of break 4 occupants died and other 3 sustained bodily injuries. The complainant’s subject vehicle was also damaged extensively.

5. Ultimately a claim was placed before the opponent insurance company. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that there was breach of conditions of the policy as the vehicle was used for commercial purpose of hire and reward. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company for breach of policy conditions and violation of the provision of Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Thereby the present respondent here in the appeal, original complainant has submitted the complaint before the Ld. District Commission Ahmedabad (Main) city. After considering both the rival contentions the Ld. District Commission came to the conclusion that there was a breach of terms and conditions and considering the legal precedence, particularly relying on decision of SC in the matter of Amalendu Sahu Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (2010) INSC 217 (25 March 2010) ultimately awarded that Insurance Company to pay 75% of the liability amount on non-standard basis with 8% from the date of the complaint.

7. The opponent insurance company preferred an appeal and today heard both the parties. Ld. Advocate Mr. R.P. Raval for appellant and Mr. P.K. Parmar for the complainant.

8. Ld Advocate Mr. R.P. Raval has submitted before us that it is an admitted position and decided that vehicle in question was utilised for higher and reward purpose and the only question today required to be adjudicated is whether the decision by the Ld. District Commission to allow the complaint when there was a fundamental breach of policy condition, and thus the complaint allowed on non-standard basis is tenable in the eye of law or not.

9. According to the submissions of Mr. R.P. Raval the complaint is not tenable as the Insurance Company has repudiated on the ground that there was a breach of the policy condition which was fundamental breach of the terms. That the vehicle was not to be utilised for hire and reward purpose, and therefore ground taken by the insurance company to reject the complaint are quite legal and correct. So, the judgement and order delivered by the Ld. District Commission is required to be interfered with and set aside. The Ld. Advocate’s pleadings are supported with citations and orders placed on record, as below:—

I. A copy of the order passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.2158/20211 dated 05/01/2018-Sanjay Kumar Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

II. A copy of the order passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.3045 of 2015 dated 20/07/2017 – Rajesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

III