Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity the Act) praying for settlement of an insurance claim at Rs. 75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that damage caused to the building and printing press of the respondent was not covered by Clause 5 of the insurance policy. The District Forum accepting the contention urged on behalf of the appellant held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. The respondent filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission, on interpretation of the word "impact" contained in Clause 5 of the insurance policy, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and granted relief to the respondent directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 18-10-1994 till the date of payment. The appellant, dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, filed revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission). The National Commission, while accepting the interpretation given by the State Commission, however, reduced the amount of payment to the respondent from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 56,000/-. Aggrieved by said order of the National Commission, this appeal is brought before this Court by the appellant.
(2.) Before us, learned counsel for the parties in their arguments reiterated their respective contentions, which were urged before all the forums. In order to consider the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties, it is both necessary and useful to quote the relevant portions from the insurance policy :- "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE insured named in the Schedule hereto having paid to United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) the premium mentioned in the said schedule. Till company agrees, (subject to the condition and exclusion contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of premium the property insured described in the said schedule or any part of such property, be destroyed or damaged by the following :- 1. to 4. ********** 5. Impact by any rail/road vehicle or animal."
(3.) In the order of the District Forum it is noticed that the appellant contested the claim by filing written objection contending that the damage caused due to vibration from the operation of bulldozer was not an incident of impact by any road vehicle, as per Clause 5 of the insurance policy for risk, and so the complaint was not maintainable. Para 4 of the order of the District Forum reads :- "4. Neither party led any evidence because it was admitted by the Opposite Party that in connection with a road construction with the help of a bulldozer near the complainants printing press in question there was damage to that building. And, both parties agreed that it all depends upon the interpretation of the term (5) of the Insurance Policy." Thus, from the order of the District Forum it is clear that the appellant did not dispute as to damage caused to the building and machinery of the respondent on account of the bulldozer driven close to the building on the road for the purpose of road construction and that both the parties agreed that the sustainability of the claim depended upon the interpretation of Clause 5 of the insurance policy. The District Forum took a narrow view that the word "impact" contained in Clause 5 of the insurance policy covered risk of only contingent impact of a road vehicle forcibly coming in contact with another. It held that the damage caused to the building and machinery in the instant case was not due to such forcible contact but it was due to the consequential effect of vibration on account of operating of a bulldozer by the side of the respondents printing press building and as such it was not covered by Clause 5 of the insurance policy; thus, there being no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable.;