TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 in 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 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 complaintant's 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive action of one thing upon another" and "effect of such action". The "impact" covered damage caused to the building and machinery in view of the admitted fact that such damage was caused because of close drive by the bulldozer on the road. Expressing thus the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and granted relief to the respondent. 5. The National Commission concurring with the view expressed by the State Commission interpreting the expression "impact" observed that the said word has to be construed liberally and in its wider sense. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the word "impact" contained in clause 5 of the insurance policy covers the damage caused to the building and machinery due t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o necessary to gather the intention of the parties from the words used in the policy. If the word "Impact" is interpreted narrowly the question of impact by any rail would not arise as the question of a rail forcibly coming to the contact of a building or machinery would not arise. In the absence of specific exclusion and the word "impact" having more meanings in the context, it cannot be confined to forcible contract alone when it includes the meanings "to drive close", "effective action of one thing upon another" and "the effect of such action", it is reasonable and fair to hold in the context that the word "impact" contained in clause 5 of the insurance policy covers the case of the respondent to say that damage caused to the building an....