Brief Facts : Complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Tata Sigma 4623 S CRE BS-IV/2019 (Open Tractor Trailer) having registration no. PB-03BA-3766. The said vehicle was insured by the OPs vide policy no. 36060231200100000466, valid from 13.07.2020 to 12.07.2021 (Ex. C-1).

On 04.09.2020, around 12:00 PM, the above said vehicle met with an accident near VPO Lehal Kalan (Lehra to Moonak Road). It has been stated by the complainant that the said vehicle was loaded with sand and while unloading it the load body uprooted and overturned and the vehicle got damaged. Complainant submitted that he intimated about this accident to the OPs but the OPs repudiated his insurance claim on the ground that the complainant's Goods Receipt Invoice dated 03.09.2020 could not be verified. Aggrieved with the said repudiation, the complainant filed the present complaint.

In reply, interalia to various other objections, the OPs have argued that the present complaint is false and vexatious; that the alleged G.R. i.e. Goods Receipt Invoice No. 8596 of dated 03.09.2020 could have not been verified by the surveyor of the OPs (Ex. C-3) so it can't be ascertained that whether the complainant was actually carrying sand on the date of accident or he is cooking a false story: that if the said G.R. No. 8596 is believed to be true, the said vehicle was being driven overloadedly on the date of accident, thereby completely absolving the insurance company from its liability to pay any claim.

Complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. OP tendered into 

evidence the Self-Declaration of Sh. Ashish Pal Sr. Div. Manager and some documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

Parties have placed on record their written arguments also.

We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and gone through the oral & documentary evidence placed on record, with their kind assistance.

Ex. OP-5 is the G.R. i.e. Goods Receipt Invoice No. 8596 of dated 03.09.2020. It is the specific allegation of the OPs that the said vehicle on the date of accident was overloaded but to show that the said vehicle was within the weight carrying limits, the complainant has fraudulently made corrections in the above mentioned GR. 

OPs have argued that the abovesaid GR shows that the complainant's vehicle was loaded with 28 tonnes of sand of the value of Rs. 4,950/-, costing @ Rs. 90/- per ton. OPs have argued that upon multiplying 28 tonnes of sand @ Rs. 90/- per ton, the value which comes out is 2,520/-, not Rs. 4,950/-. The value of Rs. 4,950/- comes out only when Rs. 90/- per ton is multiplied with 55 tonnes. 

So, to show that the said vehicle was within the weight carrying limits, the complainant has changed 55 tonnes of sand to 28 tonnes of sand so that he may fraudulently obtain the insurance claim from the OPs. Complainant has not given any justification against this specific allegation levelled by the OPs. Prima-facie, upon comparing the "digit 2 of the invoice quantity column" with the other digit 2s appearing in the said GR (Ex. OP-5) it appears to be overwritten.

As per the Paragraph No. 2(p) of Ex. C-3, the Carrying/Loading Capacity of the said vehicle was 33,136 Kgs i.e. 33.1 

tonnes. But it was being driven with a weight of 55 tonnes. So, without any doubt, it is clear that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of the accident and it was being plied on the roads in contravention of both the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the policy terms and conditions.

Resultantly, as there is no evidence of any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the present complaint is dismissed and parties are left to bear their own costs.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time limits due to heavy pendency of other cases.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.