LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S. PUSHPALYA PRINTERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. A v. M/S. PUSHPAL YA PRINTERS FEBRUARY 25, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section I 2: Insurance Policy-Damage caused to building and machinery due to impact from operation of a bulldozer-Insurance claim-Insurance company C repudiating the claim as not covered by terms of the policy-Complaint dismissed by the District Forum-Reversed by the State Commission directing payment of claim with interest thereon-Affirmed by the National Commission reducing the amount of claim-On appeal, Held: Phrase 'impact by road vehicle' in Clause 5 of the policy indicates damage caused to the building on D account of vibration of the driving of vehicles close to the road-Interpreting narrowly, damage to the building and machinery due to impact by any vehicle! rail would not arise-Since the word impact having more than one meaning, in the absence of exclusion clause it is reasonable and fair to construe the same in favour of the insured-,--Interpretation of Statutes-Insurance Law. Doctrine: 'rule of contra preferentem '-Meaning of in the context of interpretation of the word 'impact' in insurance law. Words and Phrases: 'lmpact'-Meaning of in the context of insurance law. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as to whether the word 'impact' contained in Clause 5 of the insurance policy covers E F the damage caused to the building and machinery of the insured due to driving G of the bulldozer on the road close to the building. Answering the question in the affirmative and dismissing the appeal, the Court. 631 H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. Clause 5 of the insurance policy speaks of"impact" by any rail/road vehicle or animal. If the appellant-insurer wanted to exclude any damage or destruction caused on account of driving of vehicle on the road close to the building, it could have expressly excluded. The insured possibly did not understand and expect that the destruction and damage to the building B and machinery is confined only to the direct collusion by vehicle moving OIJ the road to the building or machinery. In the ordinary course, the question of a vehicle directly dashing the building or the machinery inside the building does not arise. Further, "impact" by road vehicle found in the company of other words in the same clause 5 normally indicates that damage caused to the building on account of vibration by driving of vehicle close to the road is .:.. C also included. In order to interpret this clause, it is also necessary to gather the intention of the parties from the words used in the policy. If the word "impact" is interpreted narrowly the question of impact by rail would not arise as the question of a rail forcibly coming to the contact of a building or machinery would not arise. In the absence of specific exclusion and the word D E "impact" having more meanings in the context, it cannot be confined to forcible contact alone when it includes the meanings "to drive close", "effective action of one thing upon another" and "the effect of such action", it is reasonable and fair to hold in the context that the word "impact" contained in clause 5 of the insurance policy covers the case of the respondent. f 635-F-H; 636-A-C] 1.2. It is settled position in law that if there is any ambiguity or a term is capable of two possible interpretations, the one beneficial to the insured. should be accepted consistent with the purpose for which the policy is taken, namely, to cover the risk on the happening of certain event. Although there is no ambiguity in the expression "impact", even otherwise applying the rule F of contra preferentem the use of the word "impact" in clause 5 in the instant policy must be construed against the insurer. Where the words of a document are ambiguous, they shall be construed against the party who prepared the document. The interpretation placed by the State Commission as well as by the National Commission in relation to the expression "impact" is in order G and appropriate. f 636-C-E; 636-G] General Assurance Society Ltd v. Chandumull Jain and Anr., (1966] 3 SCR 500, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 391 of H 1999. \ - UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD r PUSHPALYA PRINTERS [PATIL J.] 633 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1997 of the National A Consumers, Disputes Redressal Com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.