State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance vs Mali Ram Jat on 19 August, 2009
BEFORE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH,
RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 1380/2008
National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: 3, Middletion Street, Kolkata- 700
071 through Manager, Jaipur Regional Office: 'Jeevan Nidhi, II Floor,
Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur- 302 005 (Raj).
..Appellant-Opposite Party
VS
Mali
Ram Jat S/o Shri Hira Ram Jat, R/o Gram Bhadwa, Tehsil Phulera,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj).
..Respondent-Complainant
Before:
Mr.
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member Present:
Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the Appellant Mr. Gopal Shastry, counsel for the Respondent ORDER Dated:19.08.2009 PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur whereby the Appellant Insurance Co. has been directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 66,260/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 16.12.2005 to the date of judgement and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within a period of one month failing which the Complainant shall get interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till payment.
The Complainant's vehicle RJ-14-1G-2275 which was insured with the Appellant Insurance Co. met with an accident near village Srinagar, the information of which was given to the police and the Insurance Co.. Spot survey and final survey was conducted and the Surveyor assessed the damage to the extent of Rs. 66,260/-. The claim was filed with the Insurance Co. but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 16.12.2005 on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident.2
The learned District Forum attributed the negligence to the other vehicle which had hit the vehicle in question and as no negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle was found, the complaint was allowed as indicated above.
The question is whether the Insurance Co. was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of the vehicle being overloaded. As per registration certificate, it is clear that the unladen weight of vehicle is 6700 kgs and gross vehicle weight was 16200 kgs, it means the goods carrying capacity allowed was 9500 kgs. Annexure R-5 shows that the vehicle at the time of accident was carrying cotton seeds the weight of which as per TR 17830 kgs, it means 8330 kgs weight was overloaded in the vehicle which is about 87% in excess. Overloaded vehicle to the extent of nearly 87% surely contributes to the cause of accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement Paramjit Bhasin vs Union of India reported in AIR 2006 SC page 440 has taken a serious view about the overloading. It was noticed that overloading causes significant damage to the roads surface and also pollution. Even overloaded vehicle are safety hazards not only for themselves but also for road users. It was found that the offence of overloading after having compounded was further allowed to be committed by permiting the vehicle to carry the same. Notices were issued to the Central Government as well as State governments. The matter was also discussed at the central level at 13th Meeting of Transport Development Council where the decision was taken for strict enforcement of the provisions relating to the overloading under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The gravity of such an offence can be judged by the fact that it was also decided in that meeting not to renew registration and permit of habitual offenders of overloading.
We would have taken a lienient view if the overloading would have been in a reasonable limit but we cannot overlook the fact that overloading was to the extent of 87%. The photographs of the vehicle taken after the accident, are on the record which indicate that the truck in question came on the extreme right side of the road. Had the carrying load been within a normal limit, the accident might have been avoided. Since there was breach of condition of insurance policy and violation of povision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated.
For the forgoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned District Forum and consequently dismiss the complaint.
Member Presiding Member Hira Lal