Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2771
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
M/s. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Subbulakshmi Proprietrix of Dhanalakshmi Machine Tools – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.599 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.M. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Mohd. Aman Alam
Marginal overloading of an insured vehicle does not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, allowing for partial compensation despite the breach.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Insurance claim repudiation - Vehicle overloading - Complainant’s vehicle carrying 11,880 kgs against a registered capacity of 9,200 kgs - State Commission held that the excess weight did not constitute a fundamental breach, awarding 75% of surveyed loss amount - Insurer's repudiation deemed deficient in service. (Paras 7, 10, 16)
(B) Burden of Proof - Insurer bears the burden to prove that the deceased breach in terms was fundamental - Marginal excess weight alone insufficient to void liability. (Para 12)
(C) Compensation for Loss - Claim adjusted to 75% of assessed loss, indicating insurer’s liability despite admitted excess loading under the policy. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant reported damage to an insured vehicle, leading to repudiation by the insurer due to alleged overloading at the time of the accident. The Complainant contested the repudiation as unjustified, arguing that the overloading was minor and did not contribute to the accident.
Findings of Court:
The insurer's repudiation of the claim was unjustified; marginal overloading should not void liability, leading to a directive for compensation based on assessed loss.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the reported marginal overloading justified the insurer’s repudiation of the claim as a fundamental breach.
Ratio Decidendi: Excess weight alone, if marginal, should not preclude liability under insurance principles; insurer must provide clear demonstration of breach impacts.
Result: Revision petition is partly allowed, insurer directed to pay a portion of the assessed damages with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal seeks redress under the consumer protection act regarding insurance claim matters. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of claim, policy conditions, and relevant events leading to the dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 9) |
| 3. the court evaluates the validity of the insurer's repudiation based on claim assessments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. arguments surround policy terms and the implications of overloading on liability. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. the court concludes the insurer must cover the claim despite overloading. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) challenging the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (‘State Commission’) order dated 28.09.2018 partly allowing FA No.531 of 2012 and setting aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore (‘District Forum’) order dated 27.06.2012.
2. As per the Registry report, there is 18 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/5000/2019, the delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred to as stated in the complaint before the District Forum. K. Subbulakshmi is the Complainant (Respondent herein) while M/s. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. is the Opposite Party (OP) (Petitioner herein).
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle Eicher Van No. TN38W1708 which was insured by the Opposite Party (OP) insurer vide Policy No. FCV/1228504/T1/03/C2T111 valid from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2011. This was a Comprehensive Policy for indemnifying the loss which may be suffered by the Complainant. The said vehicle had met with an accident on 10.02.2011 at 11.00 PM near Vellore and sustained damages. On being reported, the vehicle was inspected by a Motor Vehicle Inspector on 11.02.2011 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector had rendered an inspection report. Thereafter, the complainant had preferred a claim with the OP insurer on 17.02.2011 and all necessary documents were submitted. However, the OP illegally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 21.03.2011 on the ground that the permitted capacity of the vehicle was 9.2 Tons, but at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying the load of 11.2 Tons thereby violating the terms of the policy. Alleging deficiency in service by the insurer for repudiating the claim for Rs.4,04,205 (out of claimed Rs.5,14,205) towards repairs of the insured vehicle, the Complainant contended that the reasons cited for repudiation are false and that the vehicle had carried only normal load, and that the repudiation is a tactic to evade liability, constituting deficiency in service causing loss and mental agony to her. The Complainant had caused issue of a legal notice dated 09.05.2011, which the insurer rebutted maintaining the stand of overloading. She filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking payment of Rs.4,04,205 along with interest, Rs.50,000 as compensation and costs.
5. On being issued notice, the OP insurer filed its written version, contesting the complainant’s claims and the OP contended that the vehicle was carrying approximately 11,880 kgs of goods at the time of the accident, exceeding its permitted carrying capacity by over 2.5 Tons. OP contended that this action had violated the policy terms, as the vehicle's registration certificate and policy specified a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 16,200 kgs and an unladen weight of 7,000 kgs, resulting in a permitted carrying capacity of 9,200 kgs. Although their surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.2,51,723, they maintained that the significant overloading constituted a fundamental breach of the terms of the policy conditions. Consequently, they contended the repudiation was valid, made with due application of mind, and did not amount to deficiency in service under the Act, 1986.
6. The
