O R D E R (ORAL) Delay condoned. Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Complainant, is to the order dated 9.2.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/1225/2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.166/2012 and has dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner. In the first instance, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”), for having repudiated its claim preferred for indemnification of the loss suffered on account of the damage to the insured crane, which, while working, had overturned on the left side, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Petitioner a sum of ₹4,67,000/-, being the cost of repairs claimed to have been expended by the Petitioner on the repairs of the crane; ₹50,000/- as lump sum compensation for the mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. Accepting the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order passed by the District Forum, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that in view of India Motor Tariff (IMT) 47, which deals with Mobile Cranes/Drilling Rigs/Mobile Plants/Excavators/Navies/Shovels/Grabs/Rippers, the accident in question, namely, overturning, had been excluded under the Policy in question, observing thus : “Indisputably, the crane was damaged due to overturning while working in the factory premises. It is admitted fact that no extra premium was charged by the Insurance Company covering the risk of overturning. Thus, in view of IMT-47, the claim of the respondent was not covered under the Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the Complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.” Hence, this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strenuously urged that since neither the complete Exclusion Clause was supplied to the Petitioner at the time of issue of the Policy in question nor its scope and purport was explained to them and therefore the Insurance Company cannot rely on the said Exclusion Clause for repudiating the genuine claim preferred by the Petitioner. It is thus asserted that the order impugned in this Revision Petition suffers from material irregularity inasmuch as the said contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner has not been considered in the order. Having bestowed our consideration on the facts at hand, as emanating from the pleadings, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel. From the letter of repudiation dated 26.3.2012, it is evident that the claim preferred by the Petitioner had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on four grounds, viz., (i) since in the Claim Form, it is mentioned that “while working the crane lost balance and fell on the left side”, the said claim was covered under the Exclusion Clause, which stipulated that any loss or damage resulting in 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 lightning or burglary housebreaking or theft, the said claim squarely fell under the said Exclusion Clause; (ii) the permit, under which the vehicle was used, had not been produced before the surveyor for verification; (iii) the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not authorized to drive a hydraulic mobile crane and (iv) despite advice by the surveyor during the course of inspection not to carry out repairs without informing him, the subject vehicle was got repaired. It is manifest from a bare reading of the Complaint that the correctness of the aforesaid four grounds has not been questioned in the Complaint. It is pertinent to note that it is also not pleaded in the Complaint that neither IMT 47 was supplied along with the Policy nor its scope was explained to the Petitioner, which happens to be a Private Limited Company, as is sought to be pleaded by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. In view of the afore-going, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction conferred on this Commission. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. |
