Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Going by the terms of the policy as extracted above, it is clear that the policy would cover contingencies RSA NO. 40 OF 2018 dealt under clause (a) to (g), viz., 'flood, inundation, storm, tempest, typhoon, hurricane, tornado or cyclone'. It is apparent from paragraph No.31 of the trial court judgment that the plaintiff projected a case stating that the compound wall was collapsed due to flood and accordingly, invoking clause

(f) of the policy herein above extracted, compensation was claimed. The trial court also addressed the contention raised by the defendants that the collapse of the wall was due to structural weakness. Finally, the trial court concluded that the first defendant is not liable as per the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 to indemnify the plaintiff on account of collapse of the compound wall, due to its structural weakness and the said finding was confirmed by the appellate court also.

18. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the amendment incorporated by adding 'flood' as the reason for RSA NO. 40 OF 2018 collapse of the compound wall to be read as one relate back to the filing of the suit.

19. Adverting to the question as to whether the trial court as well as the appellate court went wrong in negating the claim at the instance of the plaintiff, it is apposite to refer the approach of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff insured his residential building, compound wall and household items with the defendants with effect from 1992 and continued periodical renewal of the same till 1997. The mishap was occurred after 5 years of the start of the policy and as per the allegation incorporated by way of amendment, the reason for collapse of the wall is nothing, but 'flood'. It is interesting to note that 'uberrimae fidei' means utmost good faith. The principles of utmost good faith are as under:

22. The evidence of DW2 coupled with Ext.B2 report is that a two-storied building was constructed by A class RCC construction of about 12 years old, situated in 24 cents of reclaimed land by filling soil in the paddy field. The building and plot were surrounded by compound wall and gate. The collapsed wall was constructed with RR masonry retaining wall foundation. As per the report, it was stated that the rubble of the collapsed wall can be re-used for re- construction. That would go to show that the compound wall was constructed on a rubble foundation.

24. On an evaluation of the evidence, the view taken by the trial court as well as the appellate court in the factual background of the case herein, where the plaintiff insured his residential building, compound wall and household items with the defendants from 1992 and continued periodical renewal thereafter till the date of the mishap acted without any good faith, could not be justified. When the insurer issues a policy covering the risk of flood, that pre-suppposes the fact that there is a likelihood of affection of flood in the said area and that might be the reason for the insured to opt for such a policy. Floods can collapse even strong structures. If so, it RSA NO. 40 OF 2018 could not be held that the plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with the defendants without utmost good faith, though the retaining wall collapsed due to flood, for which the insurer is liable to pay damages. Although surveyor's report under Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, is of much significance while assessing damages, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the defendants, here, there is a gigantic difference between the estimate as per Ext.A4 and the estimate as per Ext.B2. Anyhow, I am not inclined to reject Ext.B2. However, I am of the view that the entire amount assessed by the surveyor as per Ext.B2, i.e., Rs.12,038.40 (Rs.9628.40 + Rs.2410.00) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, without any depreciation, can be granted in this case, not as a precedent, as reasonable damages and for the said purpose, verdicts under challenge would require interference.