Interpretation of "impact" in insurance policy broadened to cover bulldozer damage. Upheld in favor of insured.

The State and National Commissions interpreted the term "impact" liberally in an insurance policy dispute. The Courts upheld the decision, ruling that damage caused by a bulldozer's close drive was covered under the policy. The judgments emphasized interpreting terms in favor of the insured in cases of ambiguity, ultimately dismissing the appeal with no costs awarded.

---

---

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.

---