BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  497 of 2013  against  CC 163/2012,  Dist. Forum, Warangal

Between:

1)  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,                                                                                                     Office at 608 & 609, II Block,

White House, Begumpet,

Hyderabad – 500 029.

2)  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,                                                                                                                                                                                Rep. by its Authorized Office of claims,                                    

Office at Far East Plaza,

II Floor, 3-6-111/8,Street No.18,                                                                                                                                           Main Road, Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad.

3)  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,                                                                                                                           Office at Layola Arcade,

Subedari, Hanamkonda,

Warangal District.         

4)  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,                                                                                                                                                                           Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,                                                                                                                                                 Regd.& Head Office at GE Plaza,

Airport Road,  Yerwada,

Pune-411 006.                                            ***                         Appellants/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties

                                                                   And

P. Ravinder Rao, S/o. Kalinga Rao, 

Owner of TATA HITACHI EXCAVATOR,

Now  residing at S.N.Towers,

Flat NO.305, H.No.6-23/21,

100 Feet Road, Gopalapur,

Hanamkonda.                                             ***                      Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s. N. Mohana Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  V. Gouri Shankara Rao

CORAM:     

          HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

                          SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                              SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO,  HON’BLE MEMBER

Oral Order :  13/03/2014 

(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

                                                                   ***

1)                The Opposite Parties in CC 163/2012 are the appellants and they challenged the orders passed by the Dist. Forum on 30.4.2013 wherein the Dist. Forum, Warangal while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.15,27,890/- to the complainant with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of  the complaint till the date of realization. 

2)                The brief facts that led to filing of the complaint are:

The complainant got his Tata Hitachi Excavator Model ZX 200LC   insured with the appellant insurance company by obtaining Vehicle Package Policy for an amount of Rs. 24 lakhs valid from 24.4.2009 to 19.4.2010.  During the subsistence of the policy i.e., on 3.12.2009 between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m., when the operator of the  excavator stationed the vehicle at  Hindustan Construction Canal Earth Work, Navegavpanda village of  Chandrapur District in Maharashtra State,   the loose soil was sunk and disturbed from the bottom of the excavator.   Due to imbalance of track, the excavator fell down which resulted in heavy damage to the vehicle.    Despite intimation to the insurance company  they did not get the vehicle repaired.   The complainant towed the vehicle to Warangal by engaging a private transporter and got it repaired incurring an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs.   The complainant lodged a claim along with necessary documents  but the appellant repudiated the claim   on 31.3.2010 on untenable grounds.   The complainant got issued legal notice but there is no reply.  In those circumstances, the complainant was constrained to approach the Dist. Forum claiming an amount of Rs. 18,22,237/- towards repairs, spare parts and loss of income etc., with interest  and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

3)                The appellant insurance company  while admitting the issuance of policy  resisted  the claim  on the ground that risk of overturning of the vehicle is not covered as the complainant has not paid  additional premium.    As the excavator was damaged due to overturning  which is not covered under the policy,  they are not liable to indemnify the loss in terms of  Indian Motor Tariff (IMT-47).   Therefore   the appellants prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4)                The Dist. Forum after considering the affidavit evidence  and  Exs. A1 to A15 marked on behalf of complainant and Exs. B1 to B4 marked on behalf of appellants and also taking into  consideration the surveyor report  came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,27,890/-  with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.   

5)                As stated supra, the said order is assailed by the appellants by  way of this appeal.

6)                The point for consideration is as to whether the Dist. Forum is justified in awarding  the said compensation  to the respondent herein or not?

7)                The learned counsel for the appellants  Sri N. Mohana Krishna vociferously  argued before us stating that  the Dist. Forum erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled  to the compensation.   According to him, though there is an insurance policy between the appellants and the respondent, the said policy does not cover overturning and for such things  such as ‘over turning’  extra premium has to be  paid which is lacking in this case.   It is his further submission that after  the accident, the respondent did not bring the vehicle  to the  Tata Workshop and he gave it for repairs to  private mechanics who  charged heavily and in those circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to pay anything towards  repair charges. 

The learned counsel for the appellants mainly placed reliance  on Indian Motor Tariff-47 (IMT-47)  to establish that insurer is not liable to indemnify  in respect of loss or damage resulting   from  overturning arising  out of   the operation as a tool. 

8)                The learned counsel   Sri V. Gouri Shankara Rao appearing for the respondent submitted that  the Dist. Forum had taken  every aspect into consideration and in those circumstances, the order is justified and  there is no need for this Commission to interfere  with the said well-considered order. 

9)                The facts are not in dispute.  From the bills produced by the respondent, it is clear that  he incurred a total expenditure of Rs.  15,27,890/- What is to be seen  in this case is,  as to,  whether  the appellants are liable to pay the said amount because of  said insurance coverage,  or not ?

10)              No doubt, it is true that  IMT-47 clearly states  that   the insurer  shall be under no obligation  in respect of loss or damage resulting from over turning arising out of the operation as a tool.    It is not known as to why  the learned counsel for the appellants  has placed reliance  on this IMT-47.    In our considered view this IMT-47 is very much in favour of the respondent.    The case according to the respondent is that  the said excavator was stationed  in between 8 and 9  a.m. on 3.12.2009 at  Hindustan Construction Canal Earth  Work, Navegavpandav Village, Chandrapur District, Maharashtra State  i.e.,  a place where loose soil was in existence and because of the sinking  of said loose soil, the vehicle i.e., the excavator overturned with ignition and due to the said  incident of sudden fall, important internal and external parts  of the machine were  heavily damaged. 

11)              From the above, it is clear that  at the time of occurrence  the vehicle was not in operation and it was in a stationary condition, and because of said loose soil which was sunk, the vehicle was disturbed from the bottom and due to imbalance of track it overturned.    In those circumstances,  in our considered opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot resort  to IMT-47.    In our considered  view, IMT-47  comes into operation only  when the vehicle is  in operation.    In those circumstances,  we reject the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 

12)             We are fortified by a decision of National Commission in “The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S Satpal & Co  in R.P. No. 3142/2012  decided in  August, 2013”  wherein it was held:

The petitioner repudiated the claim as  per  IMT – 47 i.e., the loss  or  damage  resulted by overturning arising out of the operation  as  a tool,  is  not  payable. Also extra premium was not charged in the present case. We don’t find any force in argument of Counsel for Petitioner. We are in considered view that  it  was  the landslide  which  caused  the  said  L & T  machine  to  fall  down from  the  hill  top  and  the  damage  was  caused. It is evident from the  certificate  of  Sarpanch  of the Gram Panchayat Ex.C-6. The damage was not  caused due to overturning and, therefore IMT-47 is not applicable.

13)              So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants  as to  the quantum of  compensation is concerned, we do not find any force.    As per Ex. B4  which is given by  the licensed surveyor under the caption ‘Claim Cost Approval’  is working out to  Rs. 13,94,540.47 ps.,  whereas  as per Exs. A4 to A6 total repair charges are working out to Rs. 13,27,890/- which is  much lesser than what the  mechanics would have charged.    In those circumstances,  we are of the considered view  that the said order of the Dist. Forum is not vitiated and  there is no need for this Commission to interfere with  the said well-considered order. 

14)              Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT        

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

3)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.