AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The motor accidents in this country happen without number. Let us see what is the role of "overloading" a vehicle to the maximum extent. DARCL Logistics Ltd., the complainant is a transport Company. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, their Volvo make vehicle met with an accident on 03.02.2011 at Surkhi near Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). The claim was lodged with ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.-OP-1 and its functionaries-OPs-2 & 3. The complainant got the vehicle repaired as advised by the OPs. The complainant submitted a bill in the sum of Rs.6,28,972/- to the OPs with the request to deduct salvage @ 5% and to add value of two parts i.e. Wheel Stud and Nut Retainer in the Assessment Sheet. The complainant cooperated with the OPs. Further, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure C-8) on the ground that at the time of loss vehicle was overloaded. Full load was 530% more than of actual registered/permitted load. After enough correspondence, legal notice was given. Ultimately, complaint was filed for granting the claim on the non-standard basis, not exceeding 75% of the admissible claim after deducting correct salvage amount @ 5% and also add value of two parts, i.e., Wheel Stud and Nut Retainer in the Assessment sheet. The claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation were also demanded.
The OPs contended that sanctioned capacity was 49 MT. The load was of 242 MT, which was 530% more. Again, it was the discretion of the Court to consider the claim on non-standard basis, that was not a right of the insured. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court was also called into question.
The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and granted the claim on non-standard basis upto 75% of the assessed value as assessed by the surveyor. The complainant was also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. It was also ordered that the order be complied with, within a period of 30 days, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay penal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the OPs and dismissed the complaint.
We have heard the counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner vehemently argued that there was no overloading at all. He invited our attention towards the petitioner''s letter written to the Insurance Company wherein it was mentioned, "As desired please find enclosed National permit of 4 H. Axles joined with Volvo at the time of accident." Then there was Authorization for National Permit by Regional Transport Authority, Gurgaon, which shows that gross weight of the vehicle was 36,000 kgs. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards notification issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, which shows that there are Independent trailers. Its notification is reproduced here as under:-
Chasis No. No. of Axles No. of Description Size of types Measurements (Length xWidthx Height) Unlcen Weight (in Kgs.)
Maximum Per Axle Load (in Kgs.) Weight Gross/Kgs.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
12/07/00874 12/07/00875 12/07/00876 6 Rows (2 in line axles) 7.50 x 20,12 Ply 8 in each axle in 2 rows (6x8=48 tyres) 12612mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 27,000 18,000 1,08,000
12/07/00877 12/07/00878 4 Rows (2 in line axles) 7.50 x 20,12 Ply 8 in each axle in 2 rows (4x8=32 tyres) 9512 mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 17,800 18,000 72,000
12/07/00879 12/07/00880 3 Rows (2 in line axles) 7.50 x 20,12 Ply 8 in each axle in 2 rows (3x8=24 tyres) 7962 mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 13,500 18,000 54,000
12/07/00881 12/07/00882 2 Rows (2 in line axles) 7.50 x 20,12 Ply 8 in each axle in 2 rows (2x8=16 tyres) 3410 mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 8,000 18,000 36,000
There is another notification dated 08.04.2010, which is reproduced here as under:-
"1. Type of trailers : Independent trailers
Owned by : M/s DARCL Logistics Ltd., Gurgaon
Manufactured by : M/s Tratee Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon
No. of trailers : Six
Description of trailers
Chesis No. No. of Axles No. Description, Size of tyres Measurements Length x Width x Height) Unlcen Weight (in Kgs.) Maximum Per Axle Load (in Kgs.) Weight Gross/Kgs.
01/1001488 01/1001489 6 Rows (2 in line axles) 48 tyres, 8 tyres in each row, 7.50 x20.12 PR 12612mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 27,000 18,000 1,08,000
01/1001492 01/1001493 4 Rows (2 in line axles) 32 tyres, 8 tyres in each row, 7.50 x20.12 PR 9512mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 17,800 18,000 72,000
01/1001490 01/1001491 3 Rows (2 in line axles) 24 tyres, 8 tyres in each row, 7.50 x20.12 PR 7962mm x 3000 mm x 1250 mm 13,500 18,000 54,000
Vide letter dated 26.08.2011, the Insurance Company was informed:- "Dear Mr. Ravi
Regarding claim of vehicle number CG-04-FB-8811 please refer below points for your clarification:-
For your information main part is Rear Axle casing costing Rs.495944/- replaced renovated part which is purchased on RN Basis as such there should be no salvage deduction on this part.
Salvage amount deducted of Rs.175000/- whereas as per our understanding with ICICI salvage will be deducted @ 5% of part cost in our every claim.
Further 2 parts i.e. wheel stud and Nut retainer is not taken in assessment."
It was also pointed out that even after repudiation, the OPs went on to consider their claim, as is evident from letters dated 14.11.2011, 27.12.2011 and 10.03.2012. In the said last letter, it was mentioned that "as these cases are under process in H.O. and we will provide the cheques for the below mentioned cases within three weeks time".
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all these facts and circumstances clearly go to show that there was no overloading.
This is an admitted fact that the truck in question has the load bearing capacity as under:-
Vehicle No. Gross Weight (Kgs) Unladen Weight (Kgs) Pay Load/Load Bearing Capacity (Kgs)
CG-04-FB-8811 49000 3350 45650
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the National permits granted by the competent authority, the said trailer have the load bearing capacity as under:-
Vehicle No. Gross Weight (Kgs) Unladen Weight (Kgs) Pay Load/Load Bearing Capacity (Kgs)
HR55G9792 36000 8000 28000
HR55H1116 108000 27000 81000
HR55L5578 72000 17800 54200
HR55G8284 10800 27000 81000
Total: 244200
According to the complainant, the total combined capacity of the trailer was 244200 kgs (244.2 mefiric tonnes) whereas the total load being carried at the time of the accident was only 242000 kgs (242 tonnes) which is less by 2.2 tonnes than the permissible limit.
All these arguments lack conviction. There is form 47 issued by the Transport Department Chhatisgarh, which shows that the vehicle in question was a Heavy Goods Vehicle and its capacity was 49000 kgs. There is an authority letter issued by RIA Raipur, which shows the total capacity of the load. The total weight of the vehicle is 49000 kgs as per R.C. The State Regional Authority, Raipur also issued National permit for goods vehicle which mentions:- "10. Holder of this permit will supervise the work of his workers that it can be ensured that the vehicle is being operated according to Vehicle Act and Rule formed under the same and keeping proper care of comfort & facility and public safety."
In the policy, it is also mentioned that the gross vehicle weight as 49000 kgs. It is thus clear that against the sanctioned carrying capacity of 49 MT, the load was of 242 MT, which was 530% more. It is obvious that such like abnormal overloading will be the cause of an accident. Such overloading violates the provision of Insurance Policy as pointed out by the State Commission.
It is not out of place to mention here that a number of accidents take place due to overloading. The loading in this case was excessive, which was in violation of the terms of Insurance Policy, provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and without the approval of the competent authority viz. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The duty casts upon the Commission is to take a down to earth view to pay or not to pay compensation on non-standard basis upto 75%. It will be encouraging those, who believe in overloading the vehicles and care not even a fig for the serious accidents. The Commission has to be empirical and practical in confronting reality. In order to avoid the accidents, the State Commission has taken the correct view and has not granted any amount. This is a fit case where no discretion should be used in favour of the complainant.
The Revision Petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.