1. Revision against order allowing motor vehicle insurance claim for total loss by electrocution. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 126
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Battala Sudhakar Babu – Respondent
NC/RP/1553/2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav Nair, Geo Kennedy K.
For the Respondents: Prerna Robin
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav Nair, Geo Kennedy K.
For the Respondents: Prerna Robin
Insurance claims cannot be repudiated on grounds of overloading unless it is conclusively proven that such overloading caused the accident, particularly when the company's own investigator's report and the FIR support the insured's position or attribute the accident to other causes.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Law - Repudiation of Claim - Overloading and Documentation - Total Loss of Vehicle - A claim for a vehicle gutted due to electrocution was repudiated by the Insurance Company on grounds of a gratuitous passenger and alleged fake load documents indicating overloading - Where the Insurance Company's own appointed investigator's report supports the weight of the consignment as claimed by the insured, and the opposing evidence is an unproved letter without an accompanying affidavit, the allegation of overloading cannot be sustained - If the FIR attributes the accident to rash and negligent driving and does not mention overloading, there is no conclusive proof that overloading caused the accident. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's lorry was completely gutted due to electrocution. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim, alleging that a gratuitous passenger was traveling in the vehicle and that the load documents were fake, implying overloading. The District Commission initially dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission reversed the decision, awarding the claim. The Insurance Company then filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, arguing that overloading disentitled the complainant to relief.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the second investigator appointed by the Insurance Company reported the consignment weight as 21.401 MT, which aligned with the complainant's stand. The contrary evidence provided by the Insurance Company (a letter dated 14.10.2016) was not proved by any affidavit. Furthermore, the FIR clearly attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving, with no mention of overloading.
Issues: Whether the claim repudiation on the grounds of fake documentation and overloading was justified given the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of conclusive proof that overloading caused the accident, especially when internal investigation reports and the FIR suggest other causes or support the insured's claim, the Insurance Company cannot justifiably repudiate the claim.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Insurer argued overloading and fake documents justified repudiation; insured argued loss proven with no policy breach. (Para 7 )
3. Overloading not proved; investigator's report showed weight within limit; FIR did not mention overloading as cause. (Para 10 , 12 )
4. Burden to prove overloading as breach of policy terms rests on insurer; unsubstantiated documents insufficient. (Para 10 )
5. Revision petition dismissed; no infirmity in State Commission order allowing claim. (Para 13 )
6. Can an insurance company repudiate a claim solely on the ground of suspected overloading without conclusive proof?
No; the insurer must prove overloading by credible evidence. Unverified letters and unproved documents are insufficient to establish breach of policy terms. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. Is a decision regarding overloading in a bus passenger case directly applicable to a goods vehicle claim?
No; facts are distinguishable. A bus case involving passengers more than double capacity does not apply to goods vehicles where load verification is disputed. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of an unproved letter from a consignee regarding load weight in an insurance claim?
Minimal; without supporting affidavit or cross-examination, such a letter cannot defeat the insured's documented evidence of load weight. (Para 10 )
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Gaurav Nair and Mr. Geo Kennedy K., Advocates
For the Respondent (s) : Ms. Prerna Robin, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.01.2026
ORDER
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the SCDRC,
Telangana, whereby the State Commission has reversed the order of
the District Commission dated 10.05.2018 in CC/51/2016. The
complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant had been dismissed by
the District Commission against which he filed appeal no. 189/2018 and
the State Commission while allowing the appeal has awarded the
RP/1553/2022 Page | 1
I
amount claimed in respect of the loss suffered by the complainant due
to the accident of his lorry bearing Registration No. AP 04 TU 9119.
2. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint without
appreciating the survey reports that came to be filed before the State
Commission in appeal. The vehicle had suffered loss on account of an
accident resulting in an electrocution due to electric wires having come
into contact as a result whereof the entire vehicle was gutted. The case
was of a total loss. The District Commission arrived at the conclusion
that the complainant had kept quiet about the extent of load being
carried by the vehicle and after relying on a couple of decisions held
that there was no deficiency in service. We may point out that the claim
had been repudiated by the Insurance Company vide repudiation letter
dated 02.12.2016, on the ground that there was another person
travelling in the said vehicle at the time of accident for which no extra
premium for carrying a gratuitous passenger had been paid. The
second ground taken was that the document relating to the load of
consignment carried by the vehicle was found to be fake on verification
of two investigators through their reports dated 29.04.2016 and
13.09.2016.
3. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the said reports
referred to in the letter Of repudiation. The report dated 29.04.2016 is
extracted herein under:
RP/1553/2022 Page | 2
Non.
Vijs-y Kumar Gaur
IrJVEoTiGATOR Office & Residence
> * B-161, Kamla Nehru Nagor
■ jtaG si f— ic * X aJ .." ■*■■ S&uUbd4d1U-2rSfeSj4) S n EXT. Near Arora Park,
JODHPUR-342 003
_______S 0291-2756548
Re£ So.- PRIVATE fc CONyiDENTSAZ.
DATE29.04.2Ci6
: iHi ft 9 y ’
Wk cp'rafrfri-
3.->—T33—3^>rt :- 552400/■e•l aiin 1•5-16/1568 dated 30.03.2016
WT3:— wft.3{R. ‘’Hcill’H EOng ]
4IPrt :— eft. gyidR ' -
; ^Sel:- 1U-19/GE-2939
3ffcRft-rt>4tn:- 552400/31 /14 /630C^I|Q •
sjtt Y -gst mFi K rj -i9/ge -29S9 tri Pert >.vs.
S.T.C. Cargo’s 3ft sp-iko 101 33 WJIM-i I>tY .'mi—WT B.T.C. Cargo's gRT
?f£fWe an 3jf?r^?5 f^ur, fvRnfr nraq 4 b.t .c. Cargo’s
sa ?T7cTFW, CTferp f&Rf rHTUfem Wr 3 TFW 3R -giRf TRrfiftyff 3n
SPpta fftnn. vft B.T.C. Cargo’s tte A vYsiR. srHTOT 101 J5T
3R 3c1iqi fftl sfiKI Sfr.STR. Kpfifr vtT^ H nTfilft xjnf
W3 RJ-19/GE-2989 3 W vHx> IftniT ■’TC: t
3-Rlfn ftRcT OT ft?T nft Irft.OT?. 101 g £ |
' 3T=tt^s fitHT fftRft V«f fftHT vTTTO OjfeRft
aiRREnp jriddifl 5Rga fW w 11. ' ~ "
• (fdMiii tgHfJnYg )
fate
gHf |
•J
4. Translation of the same has also been filed stating that on verification
M/s. BTC Cargo have informed that the concerned good receipts as
relied on by the complainant had not been issued by them.
5. The second investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, namely,
M/s. Pearl Insutech Private Limited tendered a report on 13.09.2016.
RP/1553/2022 Page | 3
This investigator was engaged to carry out an LR verification in respect
of a document issued by M/s. Mama Roadlines. They could not get any
information as the office of the said firm informed that the ledger
register book was not lying with them and therefore it could not be
verified, but at the same time the details were given therein reciting
that the weight of the consignment according to the way bill was 21.4
M.T. The same is extracted herein under:
- A// : "!
Pearl Insutech Private Limited
Registered Address:-
Block No.S, Soham Row House, Nr.Parshottam Bunglow, B/h. Guruchva.-a,
S.G.
