Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The respondent (complainant) has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and at the time of the accident, the vehicle was overloaded. The Surveyor discussed with the respondent (complainant) and assessed Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- on the basis of total loss and the respondent (complainant) consented that he will take the salvage at the cost of Rs.2,15,000/-. Therefore Rs.2,15,000/- was deducted from Insured Declared Value Rs.12,00,000/- and the total loss comes to the tune of Rs.9,85,000/- and as the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident, therefore the respondent (complainant) is only entitled to get // 8 // compensation on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of loss assessed Rs.9,85,000/- and after deducting 25% of Rs.9,85,000/- i.e. Rs.2,46,250/- towards overloading , a sum of Rs.7,37,250/- was payable to the respondent (complainant). The appellant (O.P.) has rightly deducted 25% of the assessed loss on the ground of overloading of the vehicle. The respondent (complainant) has received a sum of Rs.7,37,250/- in full and final satisfaction, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on Amrita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., through Its Branch Manager, 2014(4) CPR 113 (NC), Revision Petition No.2942 of 2007 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Madurai Vs. G. Velkumar, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 30.04.2014.

// 9 // the appellant (O.P.) only deposited a sum of Rs.7,37,250/- in his bank account. The appellant (O.P.) has wrongly deducted 25% of Rs.9,85,000/- i.e. Rs.2,46,250/- without obtaining consent of the respondent (complainant). The vehicle was not overloaded at the time of incident and the appellant (O.P.) has wrongly deducted the amount, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get remaining amount i.e. Rs.2,46,250/- from the appellant (O.P.) and the District Forum has rightly awarded amount of Rs.2,46,250/- which was deducted on the basis of overloading and Rs.100,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.

11. The appellant (O.P.) deducted the amount of Rs.2,46,250/- which is 25% of Rs.9,85,000/-, due to overloading in the vehicle in question at the time of accident.

12 Now, we shall examine whether the appellant (O.P.) is right in deducting the amount of Rs.2,46,250/- due to overloading in vehicle at the time of accident ?

13. The respondent (complainant) filed document i.e. Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10/C-3869 in which Unladen Weight (U.L.W.). is mentioned 6050 Kgs and Gross Weight (G.V.W.) is mentioned 25,000 Kgs. As per Goods Vehicle Permit, the loading capacity of the vehicle in question is 16450 Kg, Gross Weight is 25000 Kg and Unladen Weight is 8550 Kg. At the time of accident, // 11 // near about 20000 Kg Muroom was loaded in the vehicle in question, due to which the Gross Weight of the vehicle in question became 28550 Kg. As per Certificate of Insurance, the Gross Weight (G.V.W.) is 25000 Kg. It appears that at the time of accident, about 3550 Kg Muroom was loaded in excess in the vehicle in question, which is prima facie violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The main ground for deducting 25% of Rs.9,85,000/- is that at the time of accident the loading capacity of the vehicle was 16450 Kgs while it was loaded 20000 Kg of Muroom. The gross weight of the vehicle is 25000 Kg and the weight of the Muroom which was loaded in the vehicle was loaded is 20000 Kg, which is more than prescribed limit of the loading capacity.

14. In Oriental Insurance Company vs. Girbar Sinh Nandwanshi & Anr. 2015 (3) CPR 299, Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "the claim repudiated on ground of overloading, in a case of overloading claim has to be processed on non-standard basis. In case of overloading of a vehicle, beyond licensed carrying capacity, claim preferred by Insured should be paid @ 75% of admissible claim."

15. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. vs. Rajak 2015 (3) CPR 375 (NC) Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "In case of overloading of vehicle beyond licence carrying capacity claim is admissible upto 75% on non-standard basis."