This order shall dispose of revision petitions No.104 and 105 of 2012.  Facts are identical except that in R.P. No.104/2012, incident took place on 27.9.2004 and in R.P. No.105/2012 incident took place on 31.10.2004. 

        During the currency of the insurance policy, Crane No.HR 63/3258 belonging to the petitioner/complainant met with an accident on 27.9.2004/31.10.2004, information about which was given to the respondent insurance company.  Respondent appointed surveyor, who submitted his report.  Petitioner lodged the claim which was repudiated by the respondent on 10.8.2005 on the ground that it was a case of ‘overturning’ and not of ‘accident’ and the risk of overturning could be covered only on payment of the additional premium, which had not been paid by the petitioner.  Aggrieved by the repudiation, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the respondent to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,87,118/- with interest at the rate of 9% and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the claim amount along with interest at the rate of 9% with effect from February 2010 i.e. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

        Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, relying upon IMT 47 regarding Mobile Cranes/Drilling Rigs/Mobile Plants/Excavators/Navvies/Shovels/Grabs/Rippers, held that the respondent was not liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the crane due to ‘overturning’ as the petitioner had not paid the additional premium for the same.  State Commission has also relied upon the admission made by the petitioner in its letter dated 7.4.2005 to the effect that the petitioner had not paid the additional premium for reimbursement of the loss due to overturning.

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The loss caused to the vehicle due to overturning could be reimbursed only if the petitioner had paid the additional premium for covering the loss/damage caused to the vehicle due to overturning.  Loss due to overturning was not covered under the policy taken by the petitioner.  Dismissed.