IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Normal meaning of the word has to be accepted.
2. If a vehicle suddenly sinks inside the mud it will be termed as accident even though this may have happened due to negligence of the driver.

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dhanajay against the order dated 26.12.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Complaint Case no.13 of 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was complainant before the State Commission. Complainant had purchased R-210-7 Hydraulic Excavator from Hyundai Constructions Equipment India Ltd., for the consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. The excavator was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company through Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicle Package Policy. The duration of policy was from 27.2.2011 to 27.2.2012. While obtaining the policy, the complainant paid in total Rs.43,275/- in respect of service tax and premium etc. On 8.3.2011, the insured vehicle while digging canal, accidently went down inside the earth and got stuck there. Complainant tried to remove the said machine for 2 days but was unable to do so. During this period, water from Godavari river increased and machine got totally sub-merged in the water. The complainant had to spend huge amount i.e. Rs.6.5 lakh for removing the machine. The complainant submitted to the opposite parties that due to mud his insured machine got stuck in the sludge and this is purely accident and prayed for Rs.39,90,000/- with 12% interest. Opposite parties vide letter dated 22.09.2011 stated that on the basis of the inspection, the complainant tried to dig the canal near the river bed which was sludgy and it was negligent act of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that there was no accident in terms of the policy. Any loss for extracting the vehicle doesn’t fall under the claim. State Commission held against the complainant on the ground that it was negligent act of the complainant that led to the accident and this accident is not covered under policy claim. Hence complaint was dismissed.

3. Hence the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the claim of the appellant has been repudiated vide letter dated 19.4.2011 on the ground that the complainant was negligent in taking the excavator for digging of the canal near the river bed. The claim has mainly been repudiated on the ground that the sinking of the excavator in the mud is not an accident as defined in Section I of the policy. It was further stated that the excavator could not be taken out for some days and meanwhile the water in the river also increased, which damaged the excavator. The Insurance Company was informed and two surveyors were appointed. By the time of visits of the surveyors the vehicle could not be taken out of the mud, therefore, the surveyors submitted their report only on the basis of the position existing on the dates of their visits. On the basis of these surveyors’ reports, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. However, learned counsel stated that machine could be taken out after sometime and then quotation for repair was taken from Hydrotech Engineers and they submitted the quotations for Rs.30,24,951/- .

5. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that as per Clause 6 and 9 of Section I(1), loss or damage to the insured by accidental external means (Clause 6) by and landslide rockslide (Clause 9) is covered under both these clauses. The report of the surveyor Shri A.K.Kadam reveals that while the machine was in operation suddenly goes in the mud and then fixed in the mud. As per the report itself, the surveyor has specifically stated that the insured tried for 2 days and 2 nights to take out the machine. It clearly reveals that, it is an accident and therefore, the respondent no.1 is liable to pay claim amount.

6. On the basis of the above arguments, learned counsel stated that the State Commission has misinterpreted Sub Section (vi) of Section (I) of the Policy and therefore, the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside

7. On the other hand