National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 3 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3228 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.02.2012 in Appeal No.110/2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. Branch Office at: 19/3, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, Haryana ... Petitioner Versus The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at: 101, 1st Floor, Commercial Urban Estate -2s Near Pushpa Complex, Hisar-125 001 Haryana ..... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Mridul Chakravarty, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2013 ORDER
PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 01.02.2012 by which the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant is registered owner vehicle No.HR-38 G 6993. The vehicle was insured with the respondent/opposite party vide policy effective from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2005. On 8.3.2005 aforesaid vehicle met with an accident resulting in damage. The accident was reported to the police vide C.R. Diary No.0041 dated 8.3.2005 at police station Bijapur. Respondent was informed about the accident.
Survey was conducted by the surveyor M/s Kansara & Co., who submitted their report dated 15.4.2005. It is alleged that the complainant spent a sum of RS.17,71,710/- for reports of the truck. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of overloading although overload was not the cause of accident. Claiming the repudiation to be unjustified the petitioner filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
3. The respondent/opposite party in its reply justified the repudiation of claim on the ground that as per the registration certificate the goods carrying capacity of the insured vehicle was 38,700/- kgs. whereas against that carrying capacity the truck in question at the time of accident was carrying a load of 68,670/- kgs. which amounts to the violation of the terms & conditions of the policy.
4. The District Forum on consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated condition of insurance policy by carrying over load of about 80% of the carrying capacity recorded in the registration certificate. Thus, the District Forum held the repudiation of the claim to be justified and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed.
5. Shri Mridul, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the fora below are based on incorrect appreciation of evidence. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel contended that fora below have failed to appreciate that as per the manufacturing company Volvo, the load carrying capacity of the truck in question was 70 matric tones whereas at the time of accident, the truck was carrying a load only 68,670/-. Thus, there was reason to conclude any causal link between the load on the truck and the accident. We are not convinced with the aforesaid submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us cogent evidence which may establish that the load carrying capacity of the truck was 70 matric ton. On perusal of the order of the District Forum, which has been affirmed by the State Commission, it would be seen that District Forum has come to the conclusion about the over loading of the truck on the basis of the registration certificate of the vehicle. On perusal of the registration certificate, we find that unladen weight of the truck was 10300 kgs and its laden weight was 49000 kgms meaning thereby that load carrying capacity of the truck as per the registration certificate was 38700 kg.
Admittedly at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was carrying a load of 68,670 kgs which is over load of 80% in excess of the capacity. One cannot over-look the fact that overloading of a vehicle beyond certain limit does have an impact on the control of the driver on the vehicle. For example, when the brakes are applied to a moving vehicle, the breaking distance would be directly proportionate to the laden weight of the vehicle. Otherwise also, the increase of load on a vehicle also have an impact on the steering control. In the instant case, admittedly, at the time of accident, the truck was overloaded in excess by 80% of its weight carrying capacity which in our view had a nexus with the accident. Therefore, the fora below were right in concluding that the opposite party was justified in repudiating the claim.
The petitioner in support of its contention has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 635 as also the judgment of this Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. In our view the aforesaid judgments are of no avail to the petitioner because the said judgments are based upon entirely different facts. In the case of Amalendu Sahoo (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that a private vehicle was given on hire and as per the policy terms, such use was not appropriate. Similarly in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, the question before the National Commission was whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving license and met with an accident, whereas in the instant case, the respondent / opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground of excessive over-loading which in our view has a direct causal link with the accident resulting in damage to the vehicle. As such, we are of the view that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the claim on the ground of violation of terms of the policy.
6. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
....
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Am/