NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/707/2010

DINESH KUMAR RAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PRIYABRAT SAHU & VARUN KUMAR

25 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09 Feb 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/707/2010
(Against the Order dated 30/10/2009 in Appeal No. 1184/2007 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. DINESH KUMAR RAWATR/o. 4/13, NEB, Housing BoardAlwarRajasthan ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through its Jaipur Regional Office, Jeevan Nidhi, B.S. RoadJaipurRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 25 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner who submits that in the FIR as also in the survey report no responsibility for the accident has been fixed on the driver of the truck in question who was involved in the accident. The accident took place on account of dense fog even though the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle at a speed of 30 kilometer/hr. The District Forum had found that the vehicle was over-loaded on account of which there was violation of terms and conditions of the Policy and taking the same into account, the Insurance Co. was ordered to pay to the Complainant 75% of the amount calculated under the non-standard claims within one month with 8% interest alongwith cost. The State Commission found that the carrying capacity of the truck as per registration certificate was 15.95 MT whereas the weight of the load which was being carried by the truck, was 40.015 MT which was more than 150% of the carrying capacity of the truck in question. State Commission placed reliance on the charge sheet filed by the Police after investigation that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of the driver of truck in question under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of IPC. The State Commission also found that there was violation of terms and conditions of the Policy by carrying goods much more than the permissible capacity. The State Commission, after placing reliance on judgment of the Apex court in Paramjit Bhasin Vs. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 642 passed the impugned order which is the subject matter of revision. The Apex Court in the said judgment has seriously come against the vehicles which are being plied heavily over-loaded on the roads, since such over-loaded vehicles are hazards for safety not only for the person using that vehicle but also to other road users. The State Commission had rightly found that there was violation of terms and conditions of the Policy in as much as the truck in question was heavily over-loaded and the over-load was 40.015 MT as against the carrying capacity of 15.95 MT. The State Commission, therefore, has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission as such there is no merit in this revision. The revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER