SHARDA ASSOCIATES versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

SHARDA ASSOCIATES versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

The Supreme Court held that the accident was caused by the collapsing of the road (a landslide/road collapse) and not by overturning arising out of the operation of the excavator as a tool; Clause 1 of the policy therefore covered the loss and IMT 47 did not apply to exclude liability. The NCDRC erred in reversing concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and SCDRC; the SCDRC judgment directing the insurer to pay Rs 13.50 lakhs with interest at seven percent from the date of filing of the consumer complaint was restored.

Parties
Appellant / Insured / Complainant: SHARDA ASSOCIATES; Respondent / Insurer: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court From Judgment of NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 3306 of 2014 (civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2022)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the NCDRC set aside; judgment of the SCDRC restored.
Legal Topics
Insurance Policy Interpretation, Deficiency in Service, Revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC Under Section 21(b), Application of IMT 47, Coverage for Landslide/road Collapse
Consumer Protection Insurance Law Insurance Policy Interpretation Deficiency in Service Revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC Under Section 21(b) Application of IMT 47 Coverage for Landslide/road Collapse

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHARDA ASSOCIATES

Appellant / Insured / Complainant

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Respondent / Insurer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court From Judgment of NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 3306 of 2014 (civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss was excluded by IMT 47 as resulting from overturning while the excavator was used as a tool of trade
  2. 2 Whether the accident constituted a landslide/road collapse covered under the policy clause for landslide/rockslide
  3. 3 Whether the NCDRC exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) by reversing concurrent findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the accident was caused by the collapsing of the road (a landslide/road collapse) and not by overturning arising out of the operation of the excavator as a tool; Clause 1 of the policy therefore covered the loss and IMT 47 did not apply to exclude liability. The NCDRC erred in reversing concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and SCDRC; the SCDRC judgment directing the insurer to pay Rs 13.50 lakhs with interest at seven percent from the date of filing of the consumer complaint was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the NCDRC set aside; judgment of the SCDRC restored.

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 12 July 2019 in Revision Petition No. 3306 of 2014.
  • Restore the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 201 of 2011 dated 1 May 2014 directing the insurer to pay Rs 13.50 lakhs to the appellant together with interest at the rate of seven per cent from the date of filing of the consumer complaint.