IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance is a mutual contract between two parties and terms and conditions of such contract have to be construed and applied strictly.

The challenge in this revision petition has been made to the impugned order dated 09.06.2015, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.169/2010, “Adam Suleman Durvesh vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.” by which, while allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Forum Rajkot in consumer complaint No.15/2007, filed by the present respondent, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

2. This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 32 days. The petitioner has filed I.A. 7680/2015 for condoning the said delay. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 32 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

3. The complainant/respondent which is a partnership firm engaged in construction business, had purchased a Comprehensive Motor Insurance Policy from the petitioner Insurance Company for its earth-moving equipment named a JCB Machine, bearing No.GJ-11M3355. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the said vehicle suffered an accidental damage on 05.06.2006 during the currency of the Policy, but the claim under the Insurance Policy was repudiated by the petitioner company vide letter dated 26.07.2006 for illegal and false reasons. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Insurance Company on the ground that loss or damage that occurred due to the overturning of the vehicle, was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy, as the insured had not made payment of any premium for the overturning clause. It had been stated in regulation IMT 47 of India Motor Tariff, effective from 01.07.2002 that loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of operation as a ‘tool’ of such a vehicle was not payable. The District Forum after taking into consideration the contention of both the parties, concluded vide their order dated 13.01.2010 that the claim was not admissible, and hence, they rejected the consumer complaint in question. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission by way of appeal No.169/2010, which was allowed vide impugned order and the petitioner Insurance Company was directed to make payment of the claim of Rs.4,91,537/- with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by way of cost and compensation. The State Commission concluded that the Insurance Company had failed to prove that the JCB overturned during ‘operation’. According to the State Commission, the vehicle overturned while moving on the road near the causeway and hence, the claim was payable. Being aggrieved against this order, the Insurance Company is before us by way of the present revision petition.

4. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company that the vehicle had overturned, while it was being used as a ‘tool’ during operation. The State Commission had reached an erroneous conclusion that the overturning had occurred when the vehicle was being moved from one place to another. Referring to the set of photographs covering the incident, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the stabiliser legs of the vehicle are found to be “on” in the damaged vehicle, leading to the implication that the machine was performing its operations, when it turned turtle. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the Insurance Policy in question, saying that in the schedule of premium attached with the policy, it has been clearly written that no premium had been paid under the head, “Overturning Premium”(IMT-47). The clause IMT 47, which was applicable to the vehicle in question, lays down as follows:-

“IMT. 47. Mobile Cranes / Drilling Rigs / Mobile Plants / Excavators. / Navvies / Shovels / Grabs / Rippers.

It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Policy that in respe