The main legal point established is that in cases of overloading and violation of insurance policy terms, the claimant may be entitled to compensation on a non-standard basis, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a).

ORDER :

R.S. Sharma, President

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th June, 2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. C.C./2017/446. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that, the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle Bus bearing registration No. C.G.07-C-4065. The above vehicle was insured with the O.P. under insurance policy No. 3373/00385420/00/02 for the period from 19.3.2015 to 18.3.2016. On 24.2.2016, the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G..7.C-4065 was going through Arjunda Balod way, then near Village Parna, the steering of the Bus was failed and main belt of the vehicle was broken, due to which the bus became uncontrolled and dashed with a tree and was damaged. In the accident, the passengers who were sitting in the vehicle, sustained injuries. The First Information Report regarding the accident was lodged against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.07-C-4065. The Crime No. registered was 69/2016. The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident to the O.P. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.07-C-4065, prepared the Survey Report and submitted the same before the Insurance Company. The complainant submitted all relevant documents before the O.P. After the incident, the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G..7. C-4065 was got repaired by the complainant and she incurred a sum of Rs. 2,65,800 in repairing of the vehicle. The O.P. vide letter dated 12.5.2016, repudiated the claim of the complainant. Despite obtaining premium from the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question, the O.P. did not pay the claim amount to the complainant, which comes in the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer Clause of the complaint.

3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the vehicle bus bearing registration No. C.G.07-C-4065 in the name of Shahin Sheikh was insured with the O.P. for the period from 19.3.2015 to 18.3.2016 under terms and conditions of Package Passenger Carrying Insurance Policy. The Policy No. is 3373/00385420/000/02. On being intimation received regarding the incident, the Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who conducted survey, who assessed the net liability 0 (Zero) and recommended for repudiation of claim of the complainant. The O.P. (Insurance Company) got investigated the matter from Shri Ashok Chawla, Investigator, who concluded that at the time of incident, in the vehicle more passengers than the sitting capacity as mentioned in the R.C. Book, were sitting and the permit of the vehicle was not valid, which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is to be treated as No Claim. The sitting capacity of the vehicle in question including driver was 33 but according to the documents of the criminal case, 58 passengers were sitting in the vehicle, due to which the driver had lost his control over the vehicle and incident had occurred. As at the time of incident more passengers than the sitting capacity of the vehicle were sitting, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. According to the Registration Certificate of the vehicle bus bearing registration No. C.G.07-C-4065, the sitting capacity was 33 including driver, but at the time of incident in the vehicle more passengers than the capacity were sitting which is violation of Condition 3(a) of General Exception of the insurance policy. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and