ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 03 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,94,601/- to the respondent – complainant together with Rs. 1,000/- towards damages and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The insurance company was held entitled to the salvage of the vehicle. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle No. UA09 / 5842 (maxi cab). On 18.04.2008, the said vehicle was carrying a marriage party and the same met with an accident near Majyakot. It was alleged that at the time of the accident, 10 persons including driver were sitting in the vehicle and in the said accident, the driver died. It was also alleged that in the said accident, the vehicle was totally damaged. The intimation of the accident was given to the insurance company, who sent its surveyor at the spot on 20.04.2008. The vehicle was taken to Krishna Motors, Rishikesh for repairs, who gave an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 3,48,003/-. The claim lodged by the complainant was not settled by the insurance company and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that at the time of the accident, 12 persons were travelling in the vehicle in question against the permitted seating capacity of 10; that since the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the claim was not payable and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012 in the above manner. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the accident of the vehicle during the currency of the policy of insurance. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that in the accident, the vehicle was completely damaged. The only question is that whether at the time of the accident, the vehicle was overloaded or not and whether the vehicle was carrying the persons beyond the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle or not. There is further no dispute with regard to the fact that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the total seating capacity of the vehicle was 10. 7. The complainant has alleged that at the time of the accident, 10 persons including driver were sitting in the vehicle and in the said accident, the driver died. The insurance company has pleaded that at the time of the accident, 12 persons were travelling in the vehicle. The FIR of the accident was lodged on 18.04.2008 at 10:10 p.m. with the P.S. Kirti Nagar, Tehri Garhwal. On the basis of the FIR, the police has prepared the G.D. and wherein, it has clearly been mentioned that at the time of the accident, 12 persons including driver were travelling in the vehicle. Thus, it can not be said that 10 persons including driver were travelling in the vehicle and the vehicle was not overloaded. The complainant has not filed any evidence to show that at the time of the accident, 10 persons were travelling in the vehicle and the same was not overloaded. The District Forum has also not observed that the vehicle was not overloaded, but has stated that merely because two persons beyond the permitted seating capacity were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident, it can not be said that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. We do not subscribe to the said view taken by the District Forum. We do not subscribe to the said view taken by the District Forum. From the details of the persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident available on record, it is also evident that there was no minor person below the age of 10 years travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence it can not be said that the vehicle was not overloaded and the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. However, since there is nothing on record to show that the overloading of the vehicle has contributed to the accident of the vehicle and, as such, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated on this ground and the claim need to be settled on non-standard basis at 75%. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of P.B. Venkata Reddy Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; [2009] 1 CPR (NC) 313 = [2009] 2 UC 1346, which was also relied upon by the District Forum. In the said case, the claim was repudiated on the ground of overloading. It was held that even if there was an extra passenger or two, it could not be construed as a violation of terms of policy. In the said case, as per the postmortem report, three children were travelling in the vehicle. In the present case, as is stated above, there was no minor person below the age of 10 years travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence as per the settled law, the complainant was entitled to compensation on non-standard basis at 75%. The record shows that the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 2,99,601/-. The vehicle was insured on 31.01.2008 and it met with an accident on 18.04.2008. The District Forum has deducted Rs. 5,000/- towards depreciation of the vehicle for use of the vehicle from the date of insurance till it met with an accident, which is justified. Hence, the complainant is entitled to compensation on non-standard at 75% of Rs. 2,94,601/-, which comes to Rs. 2,20,950.75/- or Rs. 2,20,951/-. Since the District Forum has awarded interest and hence there is no question of grant of damages of Rs. 1,000/-. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum are perfectly justified. Hence, the complainant is entitled to compensation on non-standard at 75% of Rs. 2,94,601/-, which comes to Rs. 2,20,950.75/- or Rs. 2,20,951/-. Since the District Forum has awarded interest and hence there is no question of grant of damages of Rs. 1,000/-. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum are perfectly justified. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified as such. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 26.03.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant – insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,20,951/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. The direction given by the District Forum regarding holding the insurance company entitled to the salvage of the vehicle, is maintained. Costs of the appeal made easy.