State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Shri Rangila Ram on 10 October, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.230/2011
Date of Decision: 10.10.2012
Oriental Insurance Company
Limited,
Divisional Manager, Divisional
office, Vidya Bhawan,
Hospital Road, Mandi, District
Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Senior Divisional
Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company
Limited,
Divisional Office, Mythe Estate,
Kaithu, Shimla-3, H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
Shri Rangila Ram son of Shri Mohan
Lal,
R/o Village Lohakhar, Post Office
Thona,
Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi,
H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Jagjeet S. Bagga, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Mr.
Arvind Sharma, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By the impugned order a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent Rangila Ram, has been allowed and it (the appellant) has been ordered to pay `79,271/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance money; `5,000/-, on account of compensation and `2,000/- as litigation costs.
2. Respondent owned a tipper, which was insured with the appellant for the period from 10.10.2009 to 09.10.2010. On 21.10.2009, when sand was sought to be unloaded by the side of a road, the edge of the road sagged, as a result of which the tipper overturned and was damaged. Intimation of the accident and damage caused to the insured tipper was given to the appellant. A surveyor deputed by the appellant, assessed the loss at `79,271/-. The appellant, however, repudiated the claim, on the ground that tipper being a mobile plant and it having overturned, when being used as a tool, IMT 47, subject to which the policy was issued, was applicable and nothing was payable to the respondent. Respondent then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellant to pay insurance money and compensation.
3. Appellant contested the complaint, on the same ground on which it had repudiated the claim. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and ordered the appellant to pay insurance money equal to the loss assessed by its surveyor and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. IMT 47 reads as follows:-
IMT.47.Mobile Cranes/Drilling rigs/mobile plants/Excavators/Navies/ Shovels/Grabs /Rippers.
It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this policy that in respect of the vehicle insured, the insurer shall be under no liability.
a) Under Section 1 of this Policy in respect of loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto except for loss or damage arising directly from fire, explosion, self ignition or lighting or burglary house breaking or theft.
b) Under Section 11 except sol far as the necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of liability incurred by the insured arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto.
6. Learned District Forum has concluded that the tipper is a sort of truck and it does not fall in the category of any of the devices named in IMT 47.
7. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that as per claim form, Annexure R-2, the tipper, in question, was being used as a tool for unloading sand and in that process, it overturned and hence, IMT 47 is attracted.
8. Without conceding that tipper is a tool or a mobile plant, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, even if it be assumed for argument sake that the same falls in any of the categories of the devices/machines, referred to in IMT 47, still IMT 47 would not be applicable, because it was not a case of overturning of the tipper on its own. IMT 47 will be applicable when any of the devices named therein, overturns when being used as a tool, which fact implies carelessness in the use of the device, resulting in overturning. In the present case, overturning, as per report lodged with the police as also as per reference in the claim form, was due to sagging of the edge of road.
9. As a result of the above stated position, the appeal is dismissed.
10. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member October 10, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?