ORDER

10.04.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration no. DL-1LS-6150 duly insured with OP Ins. Co. vide policy bearing no. 0100763358 w.e.f. 19.04.2013 to 18.04.2014.

2. On the intervening night of 30-31.10.2013, when Teji Lal driver of the aforesaid vehicle was going towards Panipat in the aforesaid vehicle loading banner of Nokia Company, he was also accompanied by Sh. Jaiprakash, Sh. Ajit and Sh. Sunil Singh (laborer with luggage)  and when the vehicle reached at village Jat Joshe Rai, Sonipat at around 03:00 PM the aforesaid vehicle  collided with the another vehicle no. HR-55D-0091 (HTV Truck) and met with an accident.

3. The intimation of the accident was immediately given to the police and the OP Ins. Co. was also informed on its toll free customer care helpline number. The claim was lodged with OP Ins. Co. vide claim no. 620707590. It is further alleged that as per the demand all the requisite documents in respect to the claim in question was duly provided to OP Ins. Co. as and when required. The OP Ins. Co. inspected the vehicle and also conduct the survey and after long discussion with OP Ins. Co. the complainant handed over the vehicle for repairing to Shree Motor Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad. After one month the vehicle got repaired and complainant paid the repairing expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,56,389/- as OP delayed the payment under one pretext or the other.

4. The complainant approached OP Ins. Co. for reimbursement of the claim, the OP Ins. Co. failed to reimburse the amount and finally vide letter dated 10.03.2014 repudiated the claim on false and flimsy ground. Being aggrieved by the conduct of OP complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

5. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 31.10.2013. As per the FIR no. 294 dated 31.10.2013 of P.S Rai, Sonipat five passengers were travelling in the said insured vehicle including  the driver at the time of accident, whereas as per the Registration Certificate of the insured vehicle the permitted sitting capacity of subjected vehicle was maximum three only. Since at the time of accident the truck was being driven in gross violation of maximum prescribed sitting capacity the claim of complainant was squarely covered under general exception in respect to “Limitation to use “as such the claim was rightly repudiated. It is further prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with cost having no merit.

6. Complainant filed Rejoinder to the written statement of OP thereby simply denying the contents of the complaint. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

7. Complainant has placed on record copy of Ins. Policy, Registration Certificate, FIR, Repairing Bills, Invoice against the payment made repudiation letter dated 05.03.2014 in support of his contention.

8. Mohd. Azhar Head North Zone Claim filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP Ins. Co. OP company has placed on record copy of RC permit, repudiated letter dated 05.03.2014, 27.04.2014, policy terms and conditions and survey report in support of his contention.

9. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

10. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Arun Kumar Malik and Sh. Raghav Goel on behalf of OP Ins. Co. and have perused the record.

11. It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OP Ins. Co had provided the coverage to the vehicle in question by way of the Insurance Policy, as such OP is under the liability to indemnify the loss incurred to the complainant. The OP Ins. Co. has neither denied the policy  nor had denied the accident in question even the survey conduct in respect to the vehicle in question also justified the loss occurred in the accident. The surveyor vide its survey report dated 25.02.2014 admitted the damages in the vehicle and the repairing carried out and expenses incurred thereon. Despite this OP has arbitrarily repudiated the claim which is unjustified hence, present complaint be allowed in the interest of justice.

12. It is argued on behalf of OP that it is clearly mentioned in the FIR no. 294 dated 31.10.2013 of P.S Rai, Sonipat that five passengers were travelling in the said insured truck including the driver at the time of accident, whereas as per the Registration Certificate of the insured vehicle the permitted sitting capacity of subjected vehicle was maximum three only. Since at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven in gross violation of maximum prescribed sitting capacity the claim of complainant was squarely covered under general exception. To substantiate his contention  counsel for OP has drawn our attention towards General Exceptions which are reproduced as under:-

General Exceptions

     The company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of :

1. Any accidental loss, damage and / or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured here is-

a) Being used otherwise then in accordance with the ‘Limitation as to use’

Limitations as to use reads as under:

The policy does not cover

                   1…….

2. Use for carrying passenger in the vehicle: except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration, documents and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923”

13. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid general exceptions and found that the vehicle is permit to carry only that number of passengers which were permitted by Registration Certificate.

14. Now coming to the fact of the present case admittedly, at the time of accident as per FIR of P.S. Rai, Sonipat five persons were travelling in the vehicle namely Sh. Mahajan Yadav, Sh. Teji Yadav, Sh. Jai Prakash, Sh. Ajit and Sh. Sunil, whereas as per the registration certificate only three persons were permitted to travel in the vehicle in question. As such,  the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question.
15. We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR and further found that when the vehicle reached at G.T Road, Sector 7/8 during crossing when the vehicle moved little forward it was found that one truck was already standing without showing any indication and in order to save the vehicle in question driver suddenly applied the brake due to which the vehicle got collided with the standing vehicle having Registration NO. HR55D0091 resulting in the accident. The bare perusal of the contents of FIR clearly establish that the vehicle met with an accident due to its own fault and not because of any offending vehicle, as such we are of the considered opinion that the vehicle met with the accident due to overloading.

16. On the issue of overloading of the vehicle,  we are guided by Hon’ble National Commission in case title  National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravin Bhai D. Prajapati wherein it was held that:

“ if the number of the person travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident did not have a bearing on the cause of accident, then the mere factum of the presence of more persons in the vehicle would not disentitle the insured claimant from claiming compensation under the policy toward the repairing charges of the vehicle paid by the appellant”.

     “The factum of the vehicle in question carrying six passengers at the time of occurance of the accident was an undisputed facts. Thus there had been a violation of terms and condition of the Ins. Policy covered to the vehicle as he had allowed six passengers to travel in the vehicle when the permitted load was only 1+1”.

17. Coming to the fact of the present complaint case.Admittedly,  in the present complaint case the vehicle in question has carrying capacity of three passengers as per Registration Certificate. At the time of accident five passengers were travelling in the vehicle along with goods and admittedly the accident occurred due to sudden apply of the brake by the driver of the vehicle and not due to any offending vehicle as such there had been the violation of the terms and conditions of the Ins. policy as complainant had allowed five passengers to travel in the vehicle when the permitted load was only of three passengers.

18. In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above we are of the considered opinion that OP Ins. Co. has acted within the four corners of the policy terms and conditions while dealing with the claim in question. The claim of the complainant falls under the General Exception of the policy terms and condition as such the repudiation of the claim by OP is justified. Complainant failed to establish any case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. We therefore find no merit in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

19. File be consigned to record room.

20. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  10.04.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                              MEMBER