State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shankar Lal vs The New India Assurance Co. on 22 February, 2011
BEFORE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH (COURT
No.2), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 2079/2008
Shankar
Lal vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
22.02.2011
Before:
Mr.
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Smt. Vimla Sethiya, Member Present:
Mr. N.S. Yadav, counsel for the Appellant None appeared for the Respondent This appeal arises out of order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Jaipur-I, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.
A truck bearing No. RJ14-2G-7136 owned by the Complainant was insured with the Respondent Assurance Co. for the period from 21.9.2004 to 20.9.2005 which met with an accident and sustained heavy damage. The claim was filed but it was repudiated on the ground that the load carrying capacity was 15,500 kgs whereas the vehicle was carrying 45,430 kgs and thus taking it to be violation of policy condition, the claim was not paid.
The question for consideration is whether the Assurance Co. was justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. The Respondent Assurance Co. has brought on record the Investigation Report along with a voucher issued by the Mining Department (Exhibit O-3) and statement issued by Jai Shree Mewadnath Weighbridge (Exhibit O-2). From these two documents (Exhibit O-2 & A-3), it is clear that the vehicle was carrying 45,430 kgs of weight. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the weight was not so much but no document by him has been filed to show that the documents O-2 & A-3 are not correct. The Investigator Report (Exhibit O-1) is on record when it is seen along with aforesaid documents, it is clear that the vehicle was carrying 45,430 kgs at the time when the accident took place. The overloading was more than 200%.
Here, we may refer to a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 440 Paramjeet Basin vs Union of India & Ors, wherein a very serious view was taken about the overloading. It was noticed that overloading causes significant 2 damage to the road surface and also cause pollution. Even overloaded vehicles are safety hazards, not only for themselves, but also for road users. It was found that the offence of overloading after having been compounded was further allowed to be committed by permitting the vehicle to carry the same. Notices were issued to the Central Government as well as the State Governments. The matter was also discussed at the Central level at 30th Meeting of the Transport Development Council where the decision was taken for strict enforcement of the provisions relating to the overloading under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the State Governments were also directed not to issue special cards/passes which legalize overloading. 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.
Keeping in view the above legal position, we are of the view that in such a case where so much overloading was noticed, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. Where the overloaded vehicles are safety hazards, such matters should be dealt with strictly and no leniency could be extended. There is thus no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the learned DCF.
Consequently, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with cost on parties.
Member Presiding Member Hira Lal