TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of 'impact' in insurance policy broadened to cover bulldozer damage. Upheld in favor of insured.</h1> <h3>United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pushpalaya Printers</h3> United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pushpalaya Printers - [2004] 51 SCL 331 (SC) Issues: Interpretation of the term 'impact' in an insurance policy.Detailed Analysis:1. The respondent filed a complaint seeking settlement of an insurance claim under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant repudiated the claim, stating that the damage was not covered by the insurance policy. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, ruling no deficiency in service. The State Commission allowed the appeal, interpreting the word 'impact' in the policy to grant relief to the respondent.2. The appellant contested the claim, arguing that damage due to a bulldozer's vibration was not covered under the clause of 'impact by any road vehicle.' The District Forum held that the damage was not due to forcible contact, thus not covered by the policy. The State Commission, considering various meanings of 'impact,' found the damage caused by the bulldozer's close drive to be covered under the policy.3. The National Commission, concurring with the State Commission, emphasized interpreting 'impact' liberally. The key issue was whether the damage from the bulldozer's close drive was covered by the policy. The insurance policy covered destruction or damage to the property, and the term 'impact' was subject to exclusions. The absence of an exclusion for damage caused by a vehicle close to the building indicated coverage under the policy.4. The Courts interpreted 'impact' broadly, considering its various meanings and the intention of the parties. The rule of contra proferentem was applied, construing the term against the insurer due to ambiguity. The judgments emphasized good faith and the insured's benefit in cases of doubt or ambiguity in insurance contracts.5. The impugned order was upheld, affirming the interpretation of 'impact' by the State and National Commissions as appropriate. The judgment concluded that the damage caused by the bulldozer's close drive was covered under the insurance policy. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
