JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—In this complaint, the allegations are made by the complainant about the non-settlement of the Insurance claim as regards his Motor Vehicle (i.e. Matador Van). The complainant had insured his Motor Vehicle, namely, Matador Van, with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 07-11-1988, having the Policy No. 31/150604/3192, under "Comprehensive Insurance Policy", ending on 06-11-1989. It is the case of the complainant that he was ordered by the Police of the C.R.P.F. Nagpur to carry the dead-body of a Policeman, who died while on duty. While carrying the dead-body in the Van of the complainant, it met with an accident on 05-09-1989, on Agra-Bombay Highway. All the inmates in the Matador died on the spot, including the Driver and Cleaner. The complainant, therefore, lodged the claim as regards the loss of his Matador Van, with the opposite party No. 1. However, his claim was rejected after a lapse of 2 years on the grounds that the Van was used in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant, therefore, approached this Commission with the present complaint. 2. In response to our notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Insurance Company put-up its appearance with his Advocate and also filed its written version belately on 06th July 1992. The Insurance Company opposed the claim of the complainant on various grounds and technical objections. We have heard Ms. Madhuri Chiddarwar, Advocate for the complainant and Shri S.D. Mokashi, Advocate for the opposite parties. We find that the claim of the complainant has been rejected without any valid and justifiable reasons. The only ground to reject the complaint of the complainant is that the Matador Van was having a Public Carriers Permit and, therefore, no passenger could be carried the limitation of the use of such vehicles provides that six employees could be carried, not more than six in numbers. Thus, we find that the public carrier can carry passengers subject to that conditions. The restriction appears to be reasonable, but in the instant case we find that the complainant was forced by the Police to carry the dead-body of a Policeman under an emergency circumstance. The - complainant was not carrying the dead-body for any gain for himself, but the complainant was forced by the Police under peculiar circumstances. The restriction appears to be reasonable, but in the instant case we find that the complainant was forced by the Police to carry the dead-body of a Policeman under an emergency circumstance. The - complainant was not carrying the dead-body for any gain for himself, but the complainant was forced by the Police under peculiar circumstances. It was, therefore, not any voluntary act on the part of the complainant to carry the passenger. The restriction to carry the passenger is applied as a rule when the vehicle is a public carrier. The owner should not use to make the profit by carrying passengers because it may not be suitable to carry passengers on in goods van. As far as the present case is concerned, the use of the vehicle made by the complainant was not for any gain for himself, but for an humanitarian act and that too at the instance of the Police Officer. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the claim for the technical reasons is unjustifiable, untenable and incorrect. The complainant has suffered a loss of his vehicle for no fault on his part. Under these circumstances, we find that the rejection of the complainant's case of complaint is obviously not correct. We, therefore, pass the following order :— ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to settle the complainant's claim within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. The claim should be settled considering the value of the insured vehicle Rs. 1,60,000/-. If the opposite Party No. 1 fails to settle the claim within the stipulated time/period, the complainant is free to approach this Commission for appropriate relief. Complaint allowed. *****