In the instant matter the complainant was engaged in the business of hiring equipment and executing work orders for companies. The opposite parties are a public sector non-life insurance company. The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite parties for a period of one year. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 26.04.2014 wherein the accident took place while transporting mixed cement on a hilly terrain and the overturning of the vehicle also took place.
A claim was made to the insurance company and was refused stating that the policy was not extended for IMT 47 and that during the time of the accident the vehicle was used as a “Tool of Trade”. The matter for adjudication before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was to ascertain whether IMT 47 clause would apply to this present case because the vehicle was allegedly used as a Tool of Transport/Tool of Trade.
The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The complainant had to incur all the expenses for the repair of the vehicle and also had to suffer huge losses due to the oblivious attitude of the opposite parties in spite of repeated reminders.
In this instant case The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission after perusing the pleadings and documents filed by both sides held that when the tool attached to the moving vehicle was not under deployment and, in other words, when the overturning did not occur during or as a result of the tool’s operation, IMT-47 clause has no application at all. When records can prove that the accident that caused the overturning of the vehicle was prima facie due to the flexuous type of the hilly terrain. In the absence of any tangible proof that overturning of the vehicle had taken place when the tool was in actual operation, the analogy deduced by the Insurance company that the tool carrying the concrete load itself means that it was in operation is only a fallacy based on an invalid comparison. The repudiation on the part of the Insurance company is wholly unwarranted and it clearly exhibits their service deficiency, for which, they shall be held liable.
The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,58,700/- with interest @9%.p.a from the date of the complaint to the date of the payment to the complainant and Rs.25000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Assisted by Adv. Naren Gautam
