Jagdish Chand Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 19 March, 2013
15. As regards the second complaint, i.e. the one received
by transfer from the Honble National Commission, the only relevant point that
has been raised on behalf of the opposite party, is that the risk of construction
equipment initially insured on 02.06.2000, was covered so long as the said
equipment remained at the site, where it was stacked at the time of its
insurance, i.e. by the side of National Highway No.22, but the said equipment
at the time of its loss, was at the site of the bridge, away from the aforesaid
National Highway. Objection is
meritless. Location of the equipment is
mentioned in the insurance cover note only for identification of the insured
equipment. If the equipment, which is required for shuttering of bridges was to
be kept stacked at one place, far away from the rivulets and rivers, without
there being any risk of its loss by flooding, where was the need for insurance.
The very fact that the equipment was required for shuttering purposes, implies
that it was to be made use of at places, other than where it was stacked, at
the time the proposal for insurance was made and the insurance was to cover the
risk of loss when the same was put to use at such other places too. We have taken similar view in two other
cases, i.e. F.A. No.105/2011, titled Chanchal Singh vs. United
India Insurance Company Limited & Another, decided on 10.5.2012 and F.A.
No.13/2008, titled Ajay vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited &
Another, decided on 03.07.2012.