UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs P. Raja Reddy

THE complainant, Shri P. Raja Reddy purchased a hydraulic excavator from L & T Komastu PC and got the same insured with the petitioner -company for the period from 09 -02 -2011 to 08 -02 -2012. According to the complainant, on 28 -06 -2011 when the excavator was engaged in loading granite stones in a tipper bearing No. KA40 -5204, the said tipper while reversing, hit against the excavator of the complainant. As a result, the excavator slipped/fell down from a height of about 25 ft. and got badly damaged. On information of the incident being given to the insurance company, a surveyor was appointed who inspected the excavator on the spot on 29 -06 -2011. On the suggestion of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, the excavator was shifted to L & T Earth Moving Machinery Service, Chennai for the purpose of getting the same repaired. The L & T Earth Moving Machinery Service gave an estimate of Rs. 27,50,000/ - which included replacement of some parts. The complainant made payment of Rs. 17,99,999/ - for repair of the excavator and then submitted the bill to the insurance company. However, no payment was made to him compelling him to approach the concerned District Forum for payment of Rs. 18,89,999/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/ - and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -.

THE complaint was resisted by the insurance company stating therein that by the time the surveyor reached the spot, the tipper which is alleged to have hit the excavator had left the spot of accident. The plea taken by the insurance company was that had the accident really taken place in the manner claimed by the complainant the tipper would have been found on the spot. It was further alleged that the investigator S.B. Venkata Chary submitted a report stating therein that the manner of accident disclosed by the complainant was not correct and that the machine had slipped while overturning, which is not covered in the insurance policy. The District Forum vide its order dated 06 -07 -2013 directed the petitioner -company to make payment of Rs. 18,89,999/ - to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/ - towards the cost of litigation.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner has led us through the report of Mr. S.B. Venkata Chary, Investigator appointed by the insurance company. He could not show any statement in the aforesaid report, to the effect that the machine had slipped due to overturning. We rather find that in the concluding paragraph of his report Mr. Venkata Chary has clearly stated that it has been proved that the excavator got badly damaged when it fell from 25 ft. high slope. Thus, even the investigator appointed by the insurance company accepts that the excavator in question had fallen down from a height of about 25 ft. and had got badly damaged on 28 -06 -2011. However, the investigator has not given his opinion as regards the cause of the excavator falling down from the slope. The case of the complainant, as noted earlier is that the driver of the tipper in which the stone were being loaded by the excavator, all of a sudden reversed the said tipper, which then hit the excavator machine and consequently the excavator machine fell down the slope and got badly damaged. In the absence of any alternative cause of the excavator falling from the height of about 25 ft. we see no reason to reject the cause claimed by the complainant. There is no evidence produced by the petitioner -company to prove how the excavator had fallen down from a slope of about 25 ft. high. Therefore, the District Forum and the State Commission were absolutely justified in accepting the version of the accident given by the complainant in the claim submitted by him to the insurance company. We also notice that the first surveyor appointed by the insurance company namely M.D. Dakshinamurthi also did not give any other cause for the excavator to fall down from a height of about 25 ft.. Therefore, it cannot be said that no material was available before the District Forum and the State Commission to prove the cause of the accident.

SINCE the insurance company has failed to establish that the accident took place on account of overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of the machine, the case was not covered under the exclusion clause contained in the insurance policy which is reproduced on page 94 of our paper -book.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and accepted by the State Commission as to the cause of the accident, cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.