Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/941

JAI JAGANNATH INFRATEK INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP GURU

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 12.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.696/2018 by District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

JAI JAGANNATH INFRATECH INDIA PVT. LTD.                                                 …         APPELLANT

 

                  Versus

 

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                             …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

02.07.2024

 

            Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Harpreet Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

          By this appeal the complainant/appellant has challenged the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.696/2018 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.  

2.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and documents as also the relief claimed in the complaint.  We have also gone through the impugned order. From the record we find that the complainant’s dumpher bearing registration number

-2-

MP-04 HE-3978 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2018. During the insurance cover on 08.10.2017 the subject vehicle met with an accident.

3.                The complainant alleged that on claim being made to the insurance company, the insurance company sought weight slip which was filed on 23.04.2018, however, the insurance company repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was carrying more load than the sanctioned capacity. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company, the complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission dismissed the same as aforesaid.

4.                Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings, and having gone through the record, we find that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 08.10.2017 at about 1am-2am. In the weight slip no.11346 dated 07.10.2017 total weight was shown as 33930 kg whereas the sanctioned capacity of the total weight was 25000 kg. Thereafter the complainant filed an another weight slip no.11350 dated 08.10.2017 issued at 00:57 (P-9) showing less weight.   It is also pertinent to mention here that in the claim form D-2 the date and time of accident was shown as 08.10.2017 and time

-3-

12.30 am whereas in the P-9 the weight slip no.11350 the time of weight of empty vehicle was shown as 00:41 on 08.10.2017 and the time of weight of loaded vehicle was shown as 00:57 on 08.10.2017.

5.                In the weight slip number 11346 filed earlier the time of weight of empty vehicle was shown as 21:26 on 07.10.2017 and the time of weight of loaded vehicle was shown as 23:52 on 07.10.2017 thus the dumpher was loaded at 23:52 on 07.10.2017 and met with an accident at 00:30 on 08.10.2017. Only in order to get the insurance claim, the complainant by filing later slip tried to show that the load was less than the sanctioned capacity.

6.                D-2 is the claim form wherein the column of laden weight and weight of goods carried are blank. If the complainant was bonafide he must have shown the correct laden weight, unladen weight and weight of goods carried in the subject vehicle. This also creates doubt. Thus we find that the complainant was not bonafide.  

7.                In view of the above discussion we find that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was carrying more load than the sanctioned one and the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. The District Commission after considering

-4-

material available on record and considering all aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any ground to take a different view of the matter.

8.                Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

9.                In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.                  

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                 (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

              Acting President                        Member