National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Imperial Gift House And Anr. on 20 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ6(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and second respondent.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the first respondent M/s. Imperial Gift House had a valid policy obtained from the appellant covering the risk of 'Furniture' as well as 'Electronic goods' lying at their premises. On account of heavy rainfall, the roof of the building collapsed causing damage to the goods lying therein on the night of August 10 and 11,1995. Appellants were informed who appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs, 1,50,721. Since this amount was not being paid, a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for grant of Rs. 5,50,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 2,500 towards rent for storing the salvage and Rs. 1,00,000 towards business loss. It was the case of the appellant before the State Commission that the terms of the Policy did not cover the risk on account of which the loss happened. It is admitted position that as per terms of the policy, the following risks were covered:
The company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage to the Building/Contents whilst contained in the insured premises by-
(a) Fire, lightning, explosion of gas in domestic appliances.
(b) Bursting and overflowing of water tanks, apparatus pipes,
(c) Aircraft or articles dropped therefrom.
(d) Riot, strike or malicious act.
(e) Earthquake, fire and/or shock subsistence and landslide (including rockslide) damage.
(f) Flood, inundation, storm, tempest typhoon, hurricane, tornado or cyclone.
(g) Impact damage.
3. Since in this case the loss was caused by collapse of roof on account of heavy rain, it was the case of the appellant that this risk does not fall within any of the risks covered as enumerated above. The State Commission after seeing the meaning of 'Flood' and 'Tornado' in the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' in which the 'Flood' beside others also mean, "...an outpouring of water..." and 'Tornado' beside others means, "...a great downpour of rain..." and relying upon these ordinary meanings of the words 'Flood' and 'Tornado' which admittedly is covered under the policy, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,50,021 along with interest @ 12% from 21.12.1995 and Rs. 11,600 for rent of the premises for keeping the salvage intact from 11.8.1995 to 1.1.1996 along with cost of Rs. 5,000. The salvage was to be taken by the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this order the Insurance Company has filed this appeal before us.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The controversy in this case is in a narrow campass, i.e., whether the risk enumerated in the Policy covers the contingency of damage caused by collapse of roof on account of heavy rains? It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an ordinary meaning should be given to the word 'rainfall' and as understood between the parties. We are afraid there was no separate letter or any document or understanding of these or any other words, relatable to risk covered as per contract entered between the parties. It is true that an ordinary meaning should be given to the words appearing in the contract which in this case was a policy. The question is how does one obtain an ordinary meaning of the words occurring in any document? In our view, bereft of 'legalese' ordinary meaning are to be derived from the dictionary, which in this case was done from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Meaning of words 'Flood' and 'Tornado', as they appear in this dictionary has already been mentioned earlier in view of which, we see no ground to interfere with the interpretation of these words given by the State Commission.
5. We also see that the report of the surveyor was given in September 1995 and the interest has been awarded by the State Commission from December 1995, i.e., after more than two months of the receipt of the report of the surveyor.
6. It was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is not entitled to any interest. We are afraid we are not inclined to agree as till date despite the order of the State Commission, the appellant has not paid the awarded amount, thus, depriving the complainant to use of money affecting his business adversely, in terms of its commercial activity as also in terms of his relationship with the Bank, hence, in our view, the complainant shall be entitled to interest.
7. However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the respondent No. 1 /complainant shall be entitled to interest (c) 12% p.a. from 21.12.1995 till 31.12.2001 and from 1.1.2002 the complainant shall get interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of payment. Only to this extent this appeal is allowed.
8. We see no ground to modify the amount granted to the complainant for keeping the salvage intact which has to be taken by the appellant and also see no ground to interfere with the cost awarded.
9. In view of this, the order of the State Commission is modified only to the terms of interest granted relatable to the period mentioned above.
10. This appeal stands disposed of in above terms.