ORDER (ORAL)

1.       The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.07.2018 whereby the appeal of the petitioner-insurance company against the order dated 04.10.2016 of the District  Forum in C.C. No. 39 of 2016, was dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant (herein after referred as ‘the complainant’) is the registered owner of the subject vehicle, which was insured with the petitioner-insurance company.  During the validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on National Highway – 44 at Meghalaya.  While the bus was damaged, several commuters also lost their lives.  The driver of the said bus had also died in such accident.  An FIR was registered on the complaint of one Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, one of the passengers in the police station.  The complainant filed its claim with the petitioner-insurance company.  When the complainant failed to get any response from the petitioner-insurance company, he submitted a further claim for compensation on 26.03.2013.  His claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that it was violative of the policy condition. 

3.       Dissatisfied with the rejection of his claim, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming an amount of Rs. 19,91,100/- alongwith other reliefs. 

4.       The petitioner-insurance company contested the complaint of the complainant.  The sole argument was that as per the policy condition, the bus was to carry only 38 passengers but the bus was carrying more than 39 passengers and therefore, the policy condition was violated and, thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part while repudiating the claim.

5.       The parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  On the basis of evidences led before it, after hearing the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perusing the documents, the District Forum directed the petitioner-insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakh as compensation after excluding the depreciation value of the vehicle and also Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

6.       Dissatisfied with the finding of the District Forum, the petitioner-insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission and in its appeal, the contention of the petitioner was the same that since there were more than 38 passengers in the insured vehicle, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence, the repudiation was valid.  The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517.

7.       After hearing the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties and perusing the material on record and also after conisidering the findings of the Challa Upendra Rao case (supra), the State Commission had dismissed the appeal.

8.       This order is impugned before us on the same ground that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy since the vehicle was carrying more than passengers than it is permissible under the policy, thus, there is violation of the terms and c