IMPORTANT POINT
Overturning is part of accident and insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant against order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the District Forum, Jalore in complaint No. 60/2006 by which the complaint of the complainant/appellant was dismissed.

2. It arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant/appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum, Jalore on 29.9.2006 inter alia stating that the complainant-appellant had purchased a Model No. BE 220 Hydro Excavator bearing engine No. Z 111550751 on 30.3.2001 for a sum of Rs.37,00,000 and the said excavator was got insured by the complainant/appellant with the respondents Insurance Company for the period 31.3.2004 to 30.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.27,00,000 and the cover note is marked as Annexure 1. It was further stated in the complaint that the said excavator had met with an accident on 14.3.2005 and was damaged and thereafter an information was given by the complainant/appellant to the office of the respondents and the spot surveyor was appointed by the respondents. It was further stated in the complaint that in getting the repair of the said excavator a sum of Rs.19,88,681 was spent but the respondents had not paid any heed to the demands made by the complainant/appellant from time-to-time and on 3.3.2006 the complainant appellant had given a consent for a sum of Rs.9,80,000, even then the claim was not settled by the respondents and ultimately through letter dated 17.5.2006 Annexure 2 the claim of the complainant/ appellant was repudiated by the respondents Insurance Company in the following manner:

“With reference to your above claim, we wish to inform you that the competent authority has observed that Endorsement No.47 was not incorporated in the policy and no extra premium for covering the risk of overturning was charges in the policy. The cause of the loss for the above machine is due to its overturning which is not covered under the insurance policy issued to you. The competent authority has accordingly repudiated the claim in toto which please note.”

Thereafter the present complaint was filed by complainant. A reply was filed by the respondents Insurance Company on 7.12.2006 and they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 17.5.2006. Apart from that it was stated that no doubt Hydro excavator was damaged in the accident but since it was damaged on account of overturning and the fact of overturning was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and it was wrong to say that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.19,88,681. It was further stated in the reply that the surveyor K.K. Sharma appointed by the respondents in his report dated 26.5.2005 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,30,000. It was further stated in para 9 of the reply that even the negotiations for a sum of Rs.9,80,000 had taken place between the parties but since the risk of overturning was not covered under the policy, therefore, this proposal was also not found acceptable. It was further stated that since the policy was of a package policy and for overturning additional premium was required as per Indian Motor Tariff and since that was not charged from the complainant, therefore, from that point of view also the risk of overturning was not covered under the policy and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed as claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondents.

After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jalore through impugned order dated 26.3.2007 had dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant inter alia holding that since the respondents had not charged the premium for overturning while issuing the policy, therefore, the risk of overturning was not covered and the claim of the complainant/appellant was rightly repudiated by the respondents Insurance Company. Aggrieved from the said order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the District Forum, Jalore, this appeal ha