The entire case swirls around the question whether in the case of overturning of the tipper (CRANE), one can claim compensation in absence of endorsement of IMT-47. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per NB-3 which reads as follows, the petitioner is entitled to have compensation- B.3: Mobile Units Endorsement IMT-47, is to be used in respect of the following mobile units. a) Mobile Cranes b) Mechanical Navies, Shovels, Grabs, Rippers and Excavators. c) Dragline Excavators. d) Mobile Drilling Rigs. e) Mobile Plant. Package policies issued to the above units can be extended to cover damage to the unit by overturning during operational use as a tool of trade at an additional rate of 0.5% of IDV of the vehicle subject to a minimum additional premium of Rs. 100/-.As per para the Crane was not overturned during operational use at that time. It was going from one place to another place. Interpretation made by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner does not cut my Ice. if it is going for the operational use to one place to another then it would be for the operational use itself. Second submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not informed that IMT-47 was necessary. This is one of the terms of the policy. One need not be specifically retold that this is the term, the petitioner was under an obligation to deposit 0.5% of IDV of the vehicle, subject to minimum additional premium of Rs. 100. The needful was not done. He submits that he was not informed that the petitioner can avail the benefit of IMT-47. This is the argument which carries exiguous value. This is for the petitioner to apply for that benefit as well. Hence, the Revision Petition has no ground, therefore, the same is dismissed.