This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Gurpreet Singh, against the order dated 16.12.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.932 of 2011. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased “JCB machine” bearing registration No.PB13Q/7269 and got it insured from respondent/Insurance Company and the insurance was valid from 24.11.2009 to 23.11.2010. He paid the requisite premium of Rs.15,749/- covering all risks. Respondent/Insurance Company issued a cover note No.687221 in this regard. The said machine met with an accident on 3.9.2010 and the complainant immediately intimated to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor inspected the machine and assessed the loss. Petitioner/complainant got repaired his machine as per instructions of Insurance Company and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- for its repair and immediately gave the bill of repair to the surveyor, who submitted his report to Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.12.2010 terming it as “No claim” on the ground that the loss suffered by the machine was due to overturning. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa, (in short the ‘District Forum’) for direction to insurance company to release him the insurance claim of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for suffering mental tension, harassment, agony and inconvenience alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint was resisted by opposite party/Insurance Company reiterating the same grounds which were given in the repudiation letter. It was stated by Insurance Company that a policy was purchased by the complainant but the same was subjected to the compliance of terms and conditions thereof. A surveyor was appointed and on the basis of his report and other supporting documents the claim was declared as “No Claim”. The surveyor and loss assessor assessed a loss of Rs.28,500/- towards liability, but since the claim was not payable and not covered under the policy of insurance under IMT-47 the claim was rightly repudiated. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 10.5.2011 as follows:- “Having regard to the facts, circumstances and the total loss proved to have been suffered by the complainant, as per bills Exts. C-4 to C-8, as has been discussed herein above in details, letter of repudiation Ext.C-2 dated 14.12.2010 is quashed and we are of the considered opinion, that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs: (i) The amount of repair charges i.e. Rs.1,49,920/- as per bills Exts C-4 to C-8.
(ii) Since the matter has been delayed for a sufficient period by the OP and the complainant had to pay the repair charges to the repairer from his own pocket, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to reasonable and adequate amount of compensation, which we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, assess to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
(iii) Rs.5,000/- for this forced litigation.” 4. The opposite party/Insurance Company preferred appeal before the State Commission bearing No.932 of 2011. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 16.12.2011. 5. Hence the present revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that while coming from the work the JCB machine turned down on the ground due to poor way damaging the machine. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 14.12.2010 on the ground that the damage due to over turning of the machine is not covered under the policy. The District Forum had allowed the complaint, however, the State Commission has accepted the appeal of the Insurance Company and has dismissed the complaint. It was stated by the learned counsel that IMT 47 is applicable when machine is under operation. In the present case, the machine was coming from the site to the petitioner’s place and was damaged on the road itself by overturning due to poor way. 8. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that surveyor has assessed only a loss of Rs.28,500/-. The surveyor has not given any amount for replacement of the damaged parts. The repairer has given a clear estimate of replacement of parts and labour charges. The surveyor has only allowed the labour charges to some extent. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company stated that the policy is subject to IMT-47, which reads as under:- IMT 47 Mobile Cranes /Drilling /Rigs /Mobile /Plants /Excavators /Navvies /Shovels/Grabs/Rippers It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this policy that in respect of the vehicle insured PB 13 Q 7268 the Insurer shall be under no liability. a) Under Section I of this Policy in respect of loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto except for loss or damage arising directly from fire, explosion, self ignition or lighting or burglary housebreaking or theft. b) Under Section II except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of liability incurred by the insured arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto.” 10. Learned counsel argued that it would be clear from the above provision that damage due to overturning of the vehicle is not covered under the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim. Though the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.28,500/-, however the Insurance Company could not pay this amount because the claim is not payable under the policy due to the provision of IMT 47. 11. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the material on record. Section I of the policy reads as under:- “SECTION - I: LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED 1. The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon
i) by fire explosion self ignition or lightning:
ii) by burglary housebreaking or theft;
iii) by riot and strike;
iv) by earthquake (fire and shock damage);
v) by flood typhoon hurricane storm tempest inundation cyclone hailstorm frost;
vi) by accidental external means;
vii) by malicious act;
viii) by terrorist activity;
ix) whilst in transit by road rail inland-waterway lift elevator or air;
x) by landslide rockslide.” 12. From the above, two things are clear. First, that the transit by road is covered under the policy and secondly damage due to accidental external means is also covered under the policy. In the present case, the preliminary surveyor in his report has mentioned the following:- “CAUSE & NATURE OF ACCIDENT “As per the verbal statement by the insured’s representative & discussion with undersigned, the operator was returning home on the said JCB in the evening after completing work. On the way, due to poorer way, said JCB turned down on the ground. Hence, the said JCB sustained considerable damages.” 13. From the above, it can be inferred that accident happened while the machine was being brought from the work site to the home of the petitioner. Clearly the accident or overturning did not happen on the work site or during the operation of the machine, rather, the accident has happened while the machine was in transit by road which is an allowed peril under Section I of the policy. Further, a perusal of IMT 47 would reveal that the claim of overturning of special vehicles like JCB machine is not allowed if the overturning arises out of operation of the vehicle as a tool, or due to operation of a plant forming part of the machine or as being used as an attachment to the machine. The machine was not clearly being used as a tool at the time of accident. Even no plant forming part of the machine was in operation at the time of the accident. No plant was attached to the machine which could have been used at that time. So none of the conditions of the IMT 47 are met in the present case. Hence, IMT 47 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. From the aforesaid discussion, it is brought out that the claim is maintainable under the policy. Though the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.28,500/-, but it is seen from the report of the surveyor that he has only allowed labour charges and has not allowed any amount for replacement of the damaged parts. The preliminary surveyor has observed the following:- “LOSS/DAMAGE TO INSURED VEHICLE In compliance to the telephonic instructions received from B.O. MANSA on dated 04-09-2010. The undersigned visited at the place of accident. The damages to the insured’s JCB were noticed carefully & the list of damages is as under:- LIST OF DAMAGES (VISIBLE) Roof dented Leg R/S impacted K.P.C. impacted Hydraulic Pump to be checked.”
15. Moreover, the final surveyor in his report after the assessment of loss as Rs.28,500/- has mentioned that “the rates of parts allowed as that of market rates”. When the surveyor has not allowed replacement of any damaged part, the observation that parts have been allowed on market rates, was not called for unless he had intended to allow some of the parts. From the preliminary report, it seems that there may be certain parts, which were required to be changed and the surveyor intended their replacement at the market rate though nothing has been allowed by the surveyor. In these circumstances, a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- is allowed for replacement of parts. Thus, the total amount which stands allowed to the complainant will be Rs.48,500/-. 16. Consequently, the revision petition No.945 of 2012 is partly allowed to extent that the respondent Insurance Company shall pay Rs.48,500/- to the petitioner/complainant along with 6% p.a. interest from the date of order of the District Forum. i.e. from 10.05.2011. The compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the District Forum are maintained. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum stands modified and order of the State Commission is set aside. This order be complied with by the Insurance Company within 45 days from the date of receipt/service of this order. | 
