Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Shri L.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the respondent (complainant) was using he vehicle in question in violation of Rule 93 (4) (viii) of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent (complainant) overloaded the tundu leaves in the vehicle and due to over load, the tendu leaves, which was loaded in the vehicle came to contact of electric wire. According to Rule 93 (4) of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 "the overall height of a construction equipment vehicle measured from the surface on which the vehicle rests shall not exceed 4.75 metres, // 10 // while in travel mode." Instead of height of 4.75 metres, the respondent (complainant) loaded the tendu leaves in the vehicle more than prescribed height. The respondent (complainant) had loaded bags having size 54" x 54" X 40 and due to overloading of the tendu leaves in the vehicle, the damages was caused, therefore, the respondent (complainant) himself was negligent and was using the vehicle against the provisions of Rule 93 (4) of The Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and also violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.), but the learned District Forum has erroneously awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant) to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, but the appellant (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation for mental agony. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appeal may be allowed and the complaint of the respondent (complainant) be dismissed. He placed reliance on DARCL Logistics Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. and Others, II (2016) CPJ 620 (NC).

16. Learned District Forum has held that the Insured Declared Value of the truck was Rs.20,00,000/- and policy was issued on 29.01.2014. The incident took place on 01.04.2014, therefore, the value of salvage was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and has awarded Rs.17,00,000/- to the respondent (complainant).

// 13 //

17. In DARCL Logistics Ltd. s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Others (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-

"Sanctioned carrying capacity of vehicle was 49 MT whereas load was 242 MT at time of accident - Such abnormal overloading will be cause of an accident and violates provisions of insurance policy - It will be encouraging those, who believe in overloading vehicle and care not even a fig for serious accidents - State Commission had taken correct view and had not granted any amount."

19. 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."

// 14 //

20. 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."

23. Learned District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant), which is erroneous. The respondent (complainant) himself overloaded the vehicle, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation towards mental agony.

// 15 //

24. So far as cost of litigation Rs.2,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the respondent (complainant), it is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.