National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Gondamal Hardyal Mal on 14 September, 2009
RP 2509 / 2002 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2009 (From the Order dated 06.05.09 in Appeal No. 1252/2008 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner Versus M/s. Gondamal Hardyal Mal Respondent BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Jos Chiramel, Advocate 14th SEPT. 2009 O R D E R
Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant firm had insured the stock of foodgrains stocked in the godown at Swastik Ginem Factory, Bhadrakali Road, situated at Hanuman Garh. The respondent obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy valid from 17.11.06 till 16.11.07 from the petitioner. It was the case of the complainant that on 18th, 19th and 20th Nov. 2007, a heavy storm and rain came, due to which water entered inside the godown and insured good were damaged. The matter was reported to the petitioner Insurance Company, who appointed a surveyor. The petitioner company declared this to be a case of no claim. It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming, in all, Rs.6,20,178/- being the cost of damage to the goods, a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.5,000/-. The matter was contested by the petitioner, whose case was, that according to the surveyor report, the loss was not caused due to the flow of water from the floor of the godown, but had entered from the holes of roof of godown, which is made of iron sheets, hence this loss was caused due to filling in water into godown from the holes of the roof of the godown, hence, the risk is not covered by the terms of the Policy. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,89,999/-, i.e., loss assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Petitioner, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the maturity of payment alongwith cost of Rs.2100/-.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the complaint only to the extent that interest was reduced 12%p.a. to 9%p.a. All other relief granted by the District Forum was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon condition VI of the policy, which reads as under:-
VI. STORM, CYCLONE, TYPHOON, TEMPEST, HURRICNE, TORNADO, FLOOD & INUNDATION Loss destruction or damage directly caused by storm cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurriene, tornado, flood and inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature.
It is his case that since this was a question of leakage of water from roof, hence, it is not covered under any of the perils covered under the Policy.
In support of this contention, Counsel for the petitioner has produced before us the definition of inundation as obtained from the website.
After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and material on record, we find that this Commission had occasion to deal with a similar type of case in the case of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Marthi Crystal Salt Co. Ltd. [1986-2002 Consumer 6043 (NS)] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr. [II (2009) CPJ 311(NC)], wherein this Commission has interpreted the word Direct Cause as appears in the terms of the Policy and had recorded as under:-
Learned Counsel for the respondent brought on record the copy of P. Ramanatha Aiyars The Law Lexicon, Law Dictionary. As per this dictionary, the word direct cause as well as Direct and proximate cause has been defined as under:
Direct Cause that which sets in motion train of events which brings about result without intervention of any force operating or working actively from new and independent source; or , one without which the injury would not have happened.
Norbeck v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 3 Wash. App 582, 476 p 2d, 546, 547 (Blacks Law Dictionary) (Emphasis supplied) This Commission had also occasion to go into this question again in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Imperial Gift House & Anr. [I (2007) CPJ 6 (NC)], in which it was held that as per Oxford Concise Dictionary, relied upon by the State Commission, the word Flood also mean, an outpouring of water.. and tornado, beside other means, ..a great down pour of rain.. Nothing to the contrary has been shown to challenge the finding recorded by this Commission in the two Judgements (supra), meaning thereby that tornado, will also mean, ..a great down pour of rain.
It is not disputed, as per facts brought on record, by the Counsel for the petitioner, that on account of rain, the rainwater poured into the godown through the holes from the roof of the godown, thus, inundating or wetting the stock in the godown.
In view of the Judgements (supra) in which we have extensively dealt with the meaning of risk covered by the Policy, we are unable to sustain the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner that the word inundation would invariably associate with the flood, as he understands. As already described above, as per Oxford Concise Dictionary, Flood also means, .An outpouring of water. Thus, in view of the law settled by this Commission on these points, we see no merit in the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed.
..
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT ..
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER RS/