Sharda Associates vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 July 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna

Citation

[2022] 7 S.C.R. 548 : 2022 INSC 745

Headnote

Consumer Protection – Insurance claim – Deficiency in service – Insurance Policy – Interpretation of – Appellant insured JCB Excavator with respondent for Insured Declared Value of Rs 13.50 lakhs – While the excavator was being used for road making, a portion of the road gave way due to which the excavator fell into a deep ditch resulting in death of two people and total loss of the excavator – Appellant filed for insurance claim – Respondent repudiated the claim on ground that overturning of the excavator was not covered in terms of the policy condition Indian Motor Tariff

47 (IMT 47) as the JCB excavator was being used as tool of trade and no additional premium was paid – Appellant filed complaint before District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service – District Forum directed the insurer to pay an amount of Rs 13.50 lakhs together with interest @ 9% – Judgment of District Forum upheld in appeal by State Consumer Forum (SCDRC) – Respondent filed revision petition – National Consumer Forum (NCDRC) reversed the decision of SCDRC on the ground that earth moving equipment such as a JCB excavator could be used either as a tool or as a vehicle and in the present case since it was being used for road making, it was being used as a tool and not as a vehicle – NCDRC held that the insurance claim could not have been allowed under IMT 47 unless additional premium was paid – On appeal, held : Clause 1 of the insurance policy covers loss or damage which arises as a consequence of a landslide – IMT 47 applies to a situation when the loss or damage was caused due to ‘overturning’ and the ‘overturning’ should arise out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle – The accident herein however was caused as a result of a portion of the road having given way and was in the nature of a landslide – The damage or loss was not a result of the overturning of the vehicle, but was plainly due to collapsing of the road which resulted in the vehicle falling into a deep ditch – NCDRC erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by District Consumer Forum and SCDRC – Judgment of SCDRC accordingly restored.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional jurisdiction of National Consumer Forum (NCDRC) – Limited ambit of.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 12 July 2019 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 1 While exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the NCDRC, by its judgment, reversed concurrent findings of fact which were recorded by the District Consumer “NCDRC” Disputes Redressal Forum2 and by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.3 3. The appellant purchased a JCB Excavator Model 3DX on 25 April 2007. The excavator was insured with the respondent for the period betwee

View Subscription Plans →