The impact of overloading on vehicle control and the direct causal link between overloading and the accident justified the repudiation of the insurance claim.

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member - This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 1.2.2012 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 of 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 and Co., who submitted their report dated 15.4.2005. It is alleged that the complainant spent a sum of Rs. 17,71,710 for repairs 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 and 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 overload 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. Mr. 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 tons. 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 overloading 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 kgs. 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 braking 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 b