UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs PUSHPALAYA PRINTERS

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, dated the 19th July, 1996. The facts giving rise to this Petition may be briefly summarised as below:

THE Complainant, Respondent herein, had a printing press of the name of Pushpalaya Printers which was insured with the Opposite Party, Insurance Corporation, for a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/-. The policy covered amongst others, impact by any rail/road vehicle or animals. The insurance policy was valid on 9th March, 1994 when the complainant suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- on account of damage to the building and the machinery (Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-) due to the impact the operation of a bulldozer of APWD engaged in connection with the road work very close to the said press of the Appellant. The Complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the Respondent for the damage caused to his machinery and building. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss occurred due to vibration created by the operation of the bulldozer which was nothing but a consequential effect not covered under the expression "impact by any rail or road vehicle." The Complainant approached the District Forum claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-. The District Forum after considering the relevant contentions of the parties dismissed the complaint for the reasons that the alleged wrong complained of by the Complainant was not correct within the definition of deficiency in service.

BEING aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Complainant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum and the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- to the Appellant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. w.e.f. 18.10.1994 till the date of payment.

BEING dissatisfied with the Order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company has invoked the revisional power of this Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. K.L. Nandwani appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contended that the State Commission erred in interpreting the expression "impact" used in the policy. The State Commission did not appreciate the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court regarding interpretation of contract of insurance that "in interpreting documents relating to the contract of insurance, the duty of the Court is to interpret the word in which the contract is expressed by the parties because it is not for the Court to make a new contract." The word "impact" had been used in the sense that damage caused was due to an impact direct hitting one thing with the other with force and did not include consequential loss as awarded. The interpretation given by the State Commission to the expression "impact" was against the intention of the party and against the principle of harmonious construction. However, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us on behalf of the parties. It will be convenient to reproduce the finding of the State Commission on this point : "From the meaning of the word given in all these dictionaries it appears that even though ordinarily "impact" means striking of one body against another, to strike or collide, the blow of the body in motion, to drive an object with force into something else, to drive, or press (two objects) with force, force exerted by one object when striking against another, to come forcibly into contact with a larger body (Webster''s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Webster''s Third New International Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, 3rd Edn. The Shorter Oxford, (1985), Longman Dictionary of English Language), that is not the only meaning the word conveys. It appears that word also means to drive close, the impulse resulting from collision (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 Edn.), the effective action of one thing or person upon another, the effect of such action (Supplement to Oxford English Dictionary). There is no reason why we should accept one meaning given to the word "impact" and reject others. If the Respondent meant to cover only cases where damage occurred due to only direct hitting of the property insured by a moving vehicle why they did not say that clearly and specifically in their insurance policy, instead of going for a word which had more than one meaning? We also fail to understand why we must necessarily go by the interpretation of the word as given by the Respondent or as per the learned Forum seems to have done rejecting the others as sought to be relied upon from the side of the Appellant. With due respect to the learned Forum we must therefore disagree to restrict the interpretation of the word "impact" only to "coming forcibly in contact with another" and since the word is amenable to be effective action of one thing upon another" and the "effect of such action", we are inclined to hold that the word "impact" used in Clause 5 of the insurance policy included these meanings also."

IN our opinion, the State Commission was right in holding that the expression "impact" also included "to drive close" and also "the effective action of one thing upon another." The expression "impact" has to be construed liberally and in its wider sense. It is settled law that in a contract of insurance, if there is ambiguity or doubt, the contract is to be construed contra proferentem that is against Insurance Company (AIR 1966 SC 1644). The rule of construction against the insurer and favourable to the insured stems from the rule of contract proferentem which is based on the maxim verba chartarum fortus accipinuntur contra proferentem). It is also settled law that the Courts will lean against forfeiture of policy. The interpretation of the expression "impact" given by the State Commission is in consonance with and fulfils the requirements of law. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is repelled.

THE next contention raised on behalf of the Revision Petitioner was that the State Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the Complainant without any material placed on record. The Insurance Company got the loss assessed by a surveyor who had assessed the loss at Rs. 56,000/-. We find force in this contention. From the record it appears that no evidence was lead by the Complainant to prove the quantum of loss. The State Commission was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 75,000/- without any material on record. The order does not indicate as to how the State Commission has arrived at a figure of Rs. 75,000/-. There is no discussion at all. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 56,000/-. In view of this, we hold that the Complainant is entitled to Rs. 56,000/- on account of loss as assessed by the surveyor. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 56,000/- instead of Rs. 75,000/- as held by the State Commission. The parties are left to bear their own costs.