ORDER

1. This revision petition has been filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., Petitioner herein, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being aggrieved by the order of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”), which had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.80,250/- with 6% interest from the date of repudiation i.e. 07.09.2009.

2. FACTS:

In his complaint Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had insured his Indica car bearing no. MP 21E 0193 with the Petitioner/Insurance Company and on 08.10.2008 during the validity period of the insurance his vehicle, which was being driven by one Rajkumar Kol and in which his 8 family members were travelling, met with an accident after it collided with a Trolley, which was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed. The driver of his vehicle died on the spot and other passengers sustained injuries. The vehicle was completely damaged. An FIR was lodged with the police and information about the accident was also given by the Respondent/Complainant to the Petitioner/Insurance Company on 09.10.2008 with the request to take necessary steps to settle the claim. On 07.09.2009 the Respondent/Complainant received a letter from the Petitioner/Insurance Company repudiating the claim on the grounds that at the time of the accident 10 persons were travelling in the car which was in contravention of the terms and conditions contained in the Exclusion Clause of the insurance policy. Being aggrieved by this action since no such Clause was mentioned in the insurance policy, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Katni, Madhya Pradesh (for short “the District Forum”) praying for a direction to the Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,82,660/- for the damaged vehicle alongwith Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical sufferings and financial loss caused due to repudiation of the insurance claim.

3. On being served, the Petitioner/Insurance Company filed its written submissions and contended that the accident occurred because the driver of the insured car could not properly handle the car because it was heavily overloaded with 10 passengers. Further, this overloading was not permitted as per the General Exclusions contained in the insurance policy under Clause 3(1) of the General Exceptions. Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company also brought to our notice a judgment of this Commission in Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. v United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [IV (2013) CPJ 334 (NC)]

wherein it was concluded that in case a vehicle carries load over and above the permissible capacity the Insurance Company is well within its rights to repudiate such claims.

4. The District Forum, after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it, concluded that the Petitioner/Insurance Company could not prove that there was any nexus between the accident and the overloading. On the other hand, there was evidence on record that the cause of the accident was because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Trolley, which was coming at a fast speed from the opposite direction and collided with the insured car.

Petitioner/Insurance Company was also not able to show the terms and conditions in the insurance policy to indicate that there was any violation of the insurance policy, as contended by the Petitioner/Insurance Company. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- towards repair charges on total loss basis as assessed by the Surveyor alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 07.09.2009 and Rs.500/-

towards litigation costs.

5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission, which partly modified the order of the District Fo