Strict adherence to insurance policy terms is essential, especially regarding exclusions, as established in the case.

1. This first appeal arises out of a final Order dated 9.9.2022 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi, whereby the appellant - complainant's claim of insurance regarding the upturning of a Hydraulic Excavator has been rejected on the ground that such a vehicle was not classified as a vehicle in respect whereof the insurance claim, on an alleged accident of the nature involved, could be extended any benefit under the insurance policy.

2. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company and denied the reliefs prayed for by the appellant.

3. Aggrieved, the owner - company of the vehicle has come forward assailing the Order of the State Commission urging that the cause of over - turning of the vehicle was accidental and the loss and damage was covered under the policy. The repudiation by the insurance company is unjustified and that the claim deserves to be allowed.

4. The nature of the accident was sought to be explained by contending that this was totally beyond the control of the vehicle owner, as also the driver of the vehicle, and there was neither any negligence on their part nor was there any shortcoming. Emphasis was laid by relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Sharda Associates v. United India Insurnace Company Ltd., (2022) III CPJ 43 (SC) : VI (2022) SLT 658.

5. The insurance company, in the present case, repudiated the claim stating that the overturning risk was not covered at all under the policy. In order to put the narrative on record, the claim as was pleaded before the insurance company by the appellant, as contained in the letter dated 27.12.2010, is reproduced below:

P / 41/550
Dec. 27th, 2010
The Branch Manager,
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
504, Fifth floor, Mahabir Tower, (Opp. Gel Church Complex),
Main Road, Ranchi “ 834001

Sub.: Regarding accidental claim of L&T Make Hydraulic Excavator, Model PC 200-6 insured with you under Policy No. OG - 11-1003-1811-00001136 issued on 27th July, 2010

Dear Sir,

This has reference to the telecom the undersigned had with you on 23.12.2010 whereby you informed that your company which has insured Chain Mounted Hydraulic Excavator working at our mines was not responsible for the accidental damage caused as the equipment had over turned and the policy issued by you does not cover damage arising out of over turning.
In this connection we wish to inform that the policy document for Excavator issued by you is the policy document meant for commercial vehicles that are registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and ply on roads, whereas the Hydraulic Excavator is a Chain Mounted Equipment weighing 20 M.T. and moves at a very slow speed i.e. a maximum speed of 5 kilometer per hour. Its movement is also restricted to only going to the place where it has to work and is not meant to ply on roads or carry men or material.

Under the above circumstances we reiterate that the damage caused to our this equipment is squarely covered under Insurance Policy and your stand that the equipment had over turned and as such is not covered by the policy is totally misconceived.

We further wish to state that the accident has taken place on 22nd November, 2010 and we had, through your Agent, submitted the claim duly filled in on the same day, but the first response we received in respect of our claim from you was only on 14th December, 2010 whereby you wanted certain documents to be submitted which were submitted by us within the time allowed by you.

After submitting these documents on 21st December, 2010, you required us on 22nd December, 2010 to submit certain other details, which w