(1.) Arguments heard. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that the complainant is the owner of the crane and it was insured with the petitioner. During the subsistence of the contract of insurance, according to the complainant when it was in use on 2.2.2011 and lifting the boat from the seawater to the land side, the lifting hook fixed with the boat got broken and the crane jerked and as a result it fell down into the water and was damaged. He informed the petitioner about the incident and after its repair submitted the repair bills of the crane alongwith the claim with the respondent. His claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that the policy did not cover the damage to the crane on account of its overturn, and for insuring the damage to the crane due to overturn, an additional premium of 5% was required to be paid which the respondent did not pay and hence the claim was not covered under the policy. This plea of the petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum on the basis of evidence led before it and the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.4,39,624/-. The money incurred by the respondent towards repair of the crane and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost.
(3.) The petitioner challenged the said order of the District Forum by way of an appeal No.FA/101/2014 before the State Commission and raised the same contention that the damage caused to the crane was due to overturning and it was not covered under the existing policy. The State Commission after re-assessing and re-evaluating and discussing the evidence led by the parties, reached to the conclusion that the damage had not been caused due to simple over turning of the crane but it had occurred since the hook which was used for lifting the boat, got broken when the crane was used for the purpose of lifting the boat and as a result, crane had fallen into the seawater and got damaged.