JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/petitioner hired a vehicle bearing registration no. MH-15-CK-412, for transporting eggs.  On 15.07.2014, when the said truck with eggs loaded on it, reached near Village Dasia, a blue-bull came in front of the truck carrying eggs.  The driver tried to avoid hitting the animal and in the process, the vehicle over turned, thereby damaging eggs worth Rs.4,97,310/-.  Since the said goods had been insured by the petitioner with the respondent, a claim for re-imbursement in terms of the said insurance policy was lodged.  The claim however, was repudiated vide e-mail dated 11.08.2014 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“We received surveyor report in this claim.  We found overloading in this subject loaded consignment vehicle.

Policy is having condition in for overloading which is read as “It is a condition of policy that weight of cargo should not exceed registered capacity of vehicle.”

In Kg.

Vehicle was loaded with 12701 Kg.

We are enclosing relevant attachment for your ready reference.  Claim is not acceptable.”

          Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.  The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated. 

3.      The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 24.01.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the Consumer Complaint.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission. 

4.      It is an admitted position that the GVW of the vehicle being 11900 Kg and unladen weight being 4790 Kg, it was authorized to carry goods weighing not more than 7110 Kg.  However, the actual weight of the goods being carried by the vehicle was 12702 Kg.  Therefore, there was substantial overloading of the goods in the said vehicle.  Drawing my attention to the insurance policy issued by the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was a condition of the policy that the weight of the cargo should not exceed the registered carrying capacity of the carrying vehicle and since the goods being actually carried were much more than the registered carrying capacity, it amounted to a breach of the policy and therefore, repudiation of the claim was justified.  He also submits that there is a direct nexus between the overloading of the vehicle and the accident resulting with an overloaded vehicle.  The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner however, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (2016) 3SCC 100, in support of his contention that the claim could not have been rejected on account of overloading of the vehicle.  He also submits that the accident had no nexus with the load of the vehicle.

5.      A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand (supra) would show that the vehicle which met with an accident in that case was also a goods carryin