logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.079 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : NC/RP/1553 of 2022
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Parties : Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Another Versus Battala Sudhakar Babu
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: Gaurav Nair, K. Geo Kennedy, Advocates. For the Respondent: Prerna Robin, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 30-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Overloading
- Repudiation
- Insurance Claim
- Revision Petition

3. Summary:
The revision petition challenges the State Commission’s reversal of a District Commission order that had dismissed a claim for loss of a lorry due to an accident. The insurer repudiated the claim alleging overloading and an unauthorised passenger, supported by investigator reports and alleged documents. The petitioner argued the overloading claim was unsubstantiated and cited *Dubey Travels* as a distinguishing case. The State Commission found the vehicle was not overloaded, the accident was genuine, and the insurer’s repudiation lacked proof. The police FIR corroborated that the accident resulted from rash driving, not overloading. Consequently, the State Commission’s order allowing the claim was upheld.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

A.P. Sahi, President

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 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:

http://www.law365.in/images/14032026-Image15161.gif

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. 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:

http://www.law365.in/images/14032026-Image15162.gif

6. Mr. Gaurav Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of the Bench to the document dated 20.02.2016 issued by M/s. BTC Cargo in support of the contention that the concerned good receipts No. 101 had not been issued by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also invited the attention of the Bench to the letters said to have been written by M/s. M.B. Sales Corporation dated 14.10.2016, regarding the weighing receipt to urge that this document indicates that the weight of the consignment was 25.401 MT. The submission is that the vehicle suffered damage on account of the accident, the cause whereof was overloading. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the submissions of the fake document and the fact that the vehicle was overloaded disentitled the complainant from any relief and therefore the repudiation was valid and the District Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint. It is urged that the State Commission had taken a contrary view which suffers from an apparent contradiction on facts against the weight of evidence on record. He has also relied on the decision of this Commission in the case of Dubey Travels v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 197, to urge that overloading is a ground on which the Insurance Company can justifiably repudiate the claim.

7. Ms. Prerna Robin, learned counsel for the respondent has however submitted that the decision relied on is distinguishable and even otherwise the State Commission has justifiably found the accident to be genuine and the loss indemnifiable. She submits that the impugned order does not require any interference as the loss is established. She further submits that the documents were investigated and therefore even after investigation there is no proof that the accident had occurred on account of any overloading. There was no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company erroneously repudiated the claim. The District Commission committed a manifest error by relying on the documents produced by the Insurance Company and therefore the reversal by the State Commission is justified.

8. At the outset we may point out that the decision in the case of Dubey Travels (Supra) as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in respect of the alleged overloading of a bus with 73 passengers when the bus had only a capacity of 35 passengers. It was therefore not a goods carrier and even otherwise it was a case of having accommodated passengers more than double the sanctioned load. The aforesaid facts are entirely distinguishable and therefore the ratio of the said decision would not be exactly applicable on the facts of the present case.

9. There is no dispute in the present case that the accident occurred and was duly reported. The vehicle in question was electrocuted and was burnt and completely gutted. There is also no dispute that a consignment was loaded on the vehicle in question and the only dispute sought to be raised by the Insurance Company is about the verification of the load of the consignment. From the documents on record, it is evident that the loaded consignment was mentioned as 21.401 MT whereas the discrepancy sought to be pointed out by the Insurance Company on the basis of the allegations made is that the vehicle was loaded with 25.401 MT for which reliance has been placed on the letter of the consignee M/s. M. B. Sales Corporation dated 14.10.2016.

10. We find that the second investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, who tendered his report on 13.09.2016 has indicated the weight of consignment as 21.401 MT on the basis of the way bill. This report is not disputed by the Insurance Company and it has been tendered by its own appointed investigator. The alleged letter dated 14.10.2016 has not been proved by any affidavit of M/s. M.B. Sales Corporation, when the complainant had on the other hand taken a clear stand about the weight being 21.401 MT only. The assumption . therefore of overloading on the basis of the documents relied on by the Insurance Company does not establish the said fact and we are therefore satisfied that the State Commission has rightly reversed the order of the District Commission.

11. Coming to the issue of overloading we may further point out that there is a police report and the translated copy of the contents of the FIR issued by the in charge police station is extracted herein under:

http://www.law365.in/images/14032026-Image15163.gif

12. The said document was on record. It categorically records that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving causing the death of the driver and the cleaner as well as an injury to another person. This document nowhere indicates that the accident had occurred due to overloading of the vehicle. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any conclusive proof of the overloading of the vehicle.

13. The State Commission has recorded findings based on evidence in a case where neither the accident is denied nor the loss suffered could be disputed. The findings recorded clearly justify the reversal of the order of the District Commission and allowing of the complaint. We therefore find no such infirmity, irregularity or illegality so as to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal