An insurance company provided insurance cover inter alia for “impact by any rail/ road vehicle or animal.” A company claimed insurance for damage to a building and machinery due to vibration caused by a bulldozer moving close to the building. The insurance company refused. The company did not succeed before the district consumer forum but the state forum directed the insurance firm to pay Rs 75,000 in addition to interest. The national forum seconded the decision of the state forum. The insurance company preferred appeal before the Supreme Court. Upholding the interpretation of the word ‘impact’ by the state forum, the Supreme Court held inter alia that the word should be given a wider meaning. The meaning of ‘impact’ contained in the policy covers the case of damage caused in the instant case on account of a bulldozer moving close to the building (United India Insurance vs M/s Pushpalaya Printers).

A person belonging to a forward caste in Kerala obtained a false scheduled caste (SC) certifi- cate on the strength of which he was appointed in a post reserved for an SC candidate. He was later promoted and and included in the cadre of the Indian Police Service. When the truth was discovered, his service was terminated. The termination was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that as the appointment was obtained by fraud, it is void ab initio and Article is 311 is not applicable. The Article inter alia provides that a person who is a member of the civil service of the Union or any state shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry informing him of the charges and giving him an opportunity of being heard. The court also held that the person had deprived another candidate and did not deserve sympathy (R. Vi-shwanatha Pillai vs State of Kerala).

A card, known as Leela Central Card and issued by the Central Bank of India, provides the holder an insurance coverage of Rs 10 lakh in case of death due to accident. A card holder died in an accident in 1995. His widow filed a writ petition claiming interest on account of three years’ delay in payment. The question arose as to who is liable to paying the interest. According to the bank, the claim of the card holder can only lie against the insurance company as the holder was the beneficiary. The Patna High Court held that the contract of sale of the card was between the holder and the bank. The claim of enforcement of payment therefore lay against the bank (Sandhya Sah vs New India Assurance Co.).

SOLON