Summary
An insured JCB excavator was working on a hill road in Uttarakhand when part of the road gave way and the machine fell into a deep ditch, a total loss. The insurer repudiated the claim under policy condition IMT 47, which excludes loss from overturning while the vehicle is operated as a tool unless an additional premium has been paid. The District Forum and the State Commission allowed the claim, but the National Commission reversed them in revision. The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award. IMT 47 applies only where the loss is caused by overturning arising out of operation as a tool. Here the loss was caused by the road collapsing, which is a landslide risk expressly covered by Section I of the policy. In any case, the NCDRC's limited revisional jurisdiction did not permit it to upset concurrent findings of fact.
Issues
- Whether exclusion IMT 47 relieved the insurer of liability for the total loss of an excavator that fell into a ditch when the road gave way during road work.
- Whether the NCDRC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could reverse concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum and the State Commission.
Provisions considered
- Section I and endorsement IMT 47, Insurance policy (Indian Motor Tariff)Section I covers loss by accidental external means and by landslide. IMT 47 excludes only loss resulting from overturning that arises out of operation as a tool, so both conditions must be established before the exclusion applies. (¶¶ 5, 6, 9, 10)
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Revision lies only where the lower fora acted without jurisdiction, exceeded it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. It does not permit reappreciation of reasoned concurrent findings of fact (Lourdes Society, Sunil Kumar Maity). (¶ 12)
Held
- IMT 47 excludes liability only where the loss results from overturning that arises out of the vehicle's operation as a tool, subject to the exceptions for fire, theft and similar perils. Both elements must be established. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The NCDRC's reasoning that the excavator was being used as a tool rather than as a vehicle missed the point. The loss was caused by a portion of the road giving way, which is in the nature of a landslide expressly covered by the policy, and not by overturning. Even if the machine was being used as a tool, IMT 47 was not attracted. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- In its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b), the NCDRC should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission, which were based on cogent reasons. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed. The NCDRC's judgment of 12.07.2019 was set aside and the State Commission's judgment of 01.05.2014 restored, directing the insurer to pay Rs 13.50 lakhs with interest.