An insurance company cannot rely on exclusionary clauses from standard policy wordings if those conditions are not contained within the specific insurance policy document issued to the insured, especially when the policy provides a specific 'Floater Cover Extension' for the activity in question.

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 07.09.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 304 of 2015 in which order dated 29.09.2014 of Vijayawada, Krishna District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 85 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order of the State Commission dated 07.09.2016. Delay in filing the Revision Petition was condoned vide order dated 07.10.2025.

2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties 1&2) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties No. 1& 2 before the District Forum, the Respondent no.1 herein (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent no.1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Respondent no.2 was Respondent no.2 before the State Commission and Opposite Party No.3 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 12.05.2017. Respondent No.1 filed Written Arguments on 13.10.2025. No Written Arguments have been filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 despite order dated 07.10.2025, 05.08.2025 and 04.03.2025.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant obtained an insurance policy Contractor Plant and Machinery Floater Policy covering his Harverster Machine for the period from 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2012 for sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. The machine met with an accident on 25.09.2012 while it was being transported from his house to Nizamabad which resulted in extensive damage. Respondent no.3 Ujwala Harvester Corporation assessed the damage at Rs.10,89,864/-. OP No.1 and 2 obtained spot survey report through a surveyor appointed by them and according to the said report, the harvester was being moved in a truck and it was hit by a heavy goods vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The OP no.1 and 2 appointed a surveyor to assess the damage, who submitted his report and assessed the damage @ Rs.3,78,382/-. The claim was submitted by the complainant, which was repudiated on the ground that policy does not cover the damage of the vehicle during transit. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 29.09.2014 partly allowed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, the OP No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 07.09.2016 dismissed the appeal. No appeal was filed by OP No.3 M/s Ujwala Harvester Corporation against the order of the District Forum. Therefore, Petitioner No.1 and 2 are before this Commission now in the present RP.

5. During the hearing on 16.12.2024, counsel for R-1 stated that R-1 is no more and he wants to bring on record the legal heirs of R-1. The said request was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to file amended memo of parties, which was accordingly filed.

6. Petitioners have challenged the said Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) Fora below committed error by wrongly interpreting the meaning of Floater Policy by including the transit in floater policy, whereas the floater policy was issued for the purpose that th