PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision has been filed by Nirbhay Singh Chauhan against order dated 11th July 2019 passed in First Appeal No. 801 of 2018 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur (‘the State Commission’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing no. 92110092 for the trailer from OP which was valid from 21.04.2015 to 20.04.2016. On 30.05.2015, trailer of the complainant caught fire and the same was informed to the police and opposite party. 3. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21.03.2016 on the ground that the trailer was overloaded which violates the terms of the insurance policy. 4. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint being no.12 of 2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajasmand (Rajasthan) (‘the District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 22.05.2018 partly allowed the complaint with the cost of Rs.5,000/-. The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- for the insurance claim and Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony. 5. The State Commission vide its order dated 11.07.2019, partly allowed the appeal of the opposite party and modified the order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,23,875/-. The surveyor has calculated the loss of Rs.10,98,500/-. As the trailer was overloaded, the State Commission allowed the claim on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% if Rs.10,98,500/- which is Rs.8,23,875/-. Moreover, the remaining order of compensation and cost remained the same. 6. Hence, the complainant has filed the present revision petition before this Commission. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that the vehicle was never weighed and therefore the charge of overloading of the vehicle is not substantiated by any evidence. It is only on the assertion of the insurance company that the State Commission has agreed with the charge of overloading of the vehicle and accordingly the insurance claim has been allowed only on non-standard basis. The State Commission has not appreciated the affidavits of the witnesses produced by the complainant. The learned counsel further stated that the investigator has calculated the weight of the marble blocks on the basis of the royalty paid. The fact is that for every truck, the royalty at the rate of rupees 10,000 is charged irrespective of the weight. Thus, the calculation of weight on the basis of the royalty paid is not the correct method to assess the weight of the load. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined record. The investigator in his report has found the following:- Goods carrying at the time of accident: The vehicle was carrying eight marble laffers. We have inspected the marble blocks carrying at the time of accident in the foresaid vehicle. The concerned person available at the sight was not carrying builty and/ or invoice of the goods. Therefore, I have contacted M/s Key Man Marbles Pvt., Nizarana, the invoice submitted by insured vide invoice no. 134 as per invoice the Royalty Slip no. 0401424 and amount of Royalty Rs.10,000/- paid, for marble blocks. As per the rate of royalty of Mining Department (attached) rate of Royalty for Marble Blocks is Rs.240/- per ton hence as per the invoice of Key Man Marbles the amount of Royalty Rs.10000/240. 41.66 Tone marble loaded at the time of accident whereas vehicle carrying capacity is 28 tone. Hence, 13.66 Tone overloaded (48.78%) at the time of accident and this vehicle was burnt may be reasons of burning is overloading at the time accident. 9. From the above observation of the investigator, it becomes clear that the weight has been assessed on the basis of the royalty paid which has been paid to the government and it cannot be believed that the government is charging rupees 10,000 for all trucks irrespective of the weight. The material of marble blocks is such which can neither increase nor decrease in weight in the normal course. If the complainant was not convinced, he should have got the marble slabs weighed in presence of the surveyor or the investigator. The royalty has been paid to the government and the payment has not been denied by the complainant. No prudent person will pay more royalty than the mineral taken out by him. Thus, the royalty paid is a cogent evidence for assessing the weight of the material loaded on the truck. The weight has been calculated on a scientific basis and there can be no dispute to this calculation of weight. All other oral evidence or affidavits of witnesses are to be treated as secondary evidence whereas the royalty paid is the primary evidence for the weight of the material. The State Commission has thus rightly allowed the claim on non-standard basis in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., - II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC). 10. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 2241 or 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
