BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONsUMER DISPUTES REDRESsAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.184 OF2 019 AGAINST ORDERSI N ^CC.NO.92 OF 2014, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,A DILABAD Between:

M/s.United India ^{Insurance Co.Ltd.,} Rep. by its Branch ^Manager, Branch Office, 6-73/1, Ganga Reddy Road, Mancherial.

.Appellant/Oppo[ite Party And M.Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Venkateshwarlu, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Owner of Lorry No.AP-22/U-1139, Venkatramana Lorry Transport, H.No.7-66, Near Jai Bheem Petrol Pump, N.H.Road, Mancherial.

Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party: M/s.N.Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Notice served QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT, HON BLE ^{SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER} THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Two ******

Order (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Member)

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.12.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, made in CC.No.92/2014. The Appellant is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.92/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

Briefly stated, the facts are, the Complainant is the owner

3.

r of lorry No.AP-22/U-1139 which is insured with the Opposite Partu vide policy bearing No.051901/31/11/01/00002876 which was valid from 22.07.2011 to 21.07.2012. The lorry met with an accident on 24.02.2012 at Gudipet Village, Adilabad District. Thereafter, ^the Complainant informed the Opposite Party and their surveyor conducted the survey. The police at ^{Hazipur registered a} case in Crime No.14/2012. The Complainant submits that the estimated cost of repairing the damaged vehicle amounted to Rs.1,81,350/-. He submitted this along with the claim form in the prescribed format along with the necessary documents. However, the claim was repudiated on the ground of unauthorized passengers travelling in the lorry at the time of the accident. It is stated that the passengers were not unauthorized but were engaged by the Complainant for loading and unloading beedi leaves bags from the godown at Hazipur. Due to the repudiation of the claim, he has suffered damages and filed the present complaint against their deficienicy in service.

4. The Opposite Party filed their detailed written version admitting to the fact that the Complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-22/U-1139 and that the vehicle was insured with them as on the date of accident i.e., 24.02.2012. As per the complaint made by K.Arun it clearly reveals that the lorry driver was carrying passengers and ^due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. This is a violation of the policy condition and hence the claim for an amount of Rs.1,81,350/- towards damages ^{of vehicle} was repudiated.They also deny that the claimn made for loss of earning for Rs.1,00,000/- and the claim for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards amount borrowed on account of repairing the lorry by the Complainant is put to strict proof. There is no cause for filing the present complaint and hence seek its dismissal.

5. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A10 marked on her behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Party not filed and no documents marked on their behalf.

The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,03,600/- towards policy covered amount and Rs.2,000/- costs of the proceedings with interest @

T% p.a. till realization, within four weeks from the date of the order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to proceed against the Opposite Party U/s. 25/27 of c.P.Act, 1986.

7. Aggrieved by. the said order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:

The Forum erred in allowing the complaint of the Respondent wit