The petitioner – Ishu Kumar filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muzzaffar Nagar (short, ‘District Forum’) alleging that his insurance claim pertaining to the damage caused to his truck was wrongly repudiated by respondent/insurance company on the ground that at the time of accident, the truck was being driven in violation of insurance contract inasmuch as it was overloaded to the 100% capacity. 2. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum, Muzzaffar Nagar vide its order dated 7.12.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent/Insurance Company preferred an appeal before Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, “State Commission”). State Commission allowed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 29.8.2013. The basic reason for allowing the appeal and dismissed the complaint is that the truck was being driven in violation of terms of the insurance contract which specifically provide that the insurance company would not be liable to make payment of any insurance claim caused to the vehicle by overloading. 4. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason firstly ; because the accident did not take place due to negligence or fault of the driver of the subject truck. It is further contended that State Commission while dismissing the complaint has ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “even in cases of violation of technical aspect of the Motor Vehicle Act/Rules, the insurance company is supposed to settle the insurance claim on non-standard basis”. 6. Learned counsel Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has contended that the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted for the reason that the subject truck admittedly was being driven against the specific terms of the insurance contract whereby it was stipulated that insurance company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of the insurance claim resulting as a consequence the damage caused by overloading of the vehicle. He has further contended that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case because in the instant case, there was a specific clause excluding the liability of the insurance of the insurance company in the event of overloading of the insured vehicle. 7. We have considered the rival contention. It is not disputed that the subject truck was insured with the respondent/insurance company. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident, insured truck was being driven by overloading to the extent of 100% of the permissible capacity. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint mainly in view of clause 2 (A) of the insurance contract, which is reproduced as under :- “Section 2 - The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of : - Consequential loss, depreciation, wherein year, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages nor for damages caused by overloading or straining of the insured vehicle nor for or damage to accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time.”
9. On reading of the above, it is clear that as per the terms and conditions of insurance contract, particularly the above noted clause, the respondent / opposite party is not liable to make any payment if the damage is caused to the insured vehicle because of over loading. In the instant case, admittedly the subject truck at the time of accident was plying with over load to the 100% of the permissible capacity. It is well settled that an insurance contract is a species of commercial transactions and while deciding the dispute between the insured and the insurer, the terms and conditions have to be construed strictly. (Reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599). Since the subject truck was carrying over load at the time of accident, the repudiation of the insurance claim by the respondent / insurance company in terms of clause 2 (a) cannot be faulted. 10. Otherwise also, at the time of incident, the subject truck was carrying over load to the extent of 100% of its sanctioned capacity. As per the law of physics, over load to such an extent is highly risky because it adversely affects the centre of gravity of the vehicle and impairs the driver’s skill because of excessive momentum, change in breaking distance and impact on steering control. Thus, it is clear that such an excessive over loading must have attributed to the accident resulting in damage to the truck. Therefore, violation of Motor Vehicle Rules on the part of the petitioner is material. As such, there is no grant of insurance claim on non-standard basis. 11. In view of the discussion above, the well reasoned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The petitioner has not been able to show any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
