Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2004 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (2) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURTWhether the damage caused to the building and the machinery of the respondent was the resultant of the impact by the bulldozer? Whether the word "impact" contained in clause 5 of the insurance policy covers the damage caused to the building and machinery due to driving of the bulldozer on the road close to the building? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The interpretation placed by the State Commission as well as by the National Commission in relation to the expression "impact" is in order and appropriate. It is also settled position in law that if there is any ambiguity or a term is capable of two possible interpretations one beneficial to the insured should be accepted consistent with the purpose for which the policy is taken, namely, to cover the risk on the happening of certain event. Although there is no ambiguity in the expression "impact", even otherwise applying the rule of contra proferentem, the use of the word "impact" in clause 5 in the instant policy must be construed against the appellant. Where the words of a document are ambiguous, they shall be construed against the party who prepared the document. This rule applies to contracts of insurance and clause 5 of the insurance policy even after reading the entire policy in the present case should be construed against the insurer.
|