Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of paying high premium, the claim of the petitioner being rejected is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unsustainable as the policy includes the STFI cover and showing a mere exclusion of STFI perils in the general conditions cannot be the basis to reject the claim of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  ____________ after multiple surveys conducted the respondent at the petitioner’s premises and the loss having been quantified by the petitioner, the respondent cannot repudiate the claim of the petitioner citing non-inclusion of STFI cover in the policy, when the policy schedule clearly mandates inclusion of STFI cover.

13. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that not once, but twice, based on the claim made by the petitioner, surveyors were appointed to survey the damage caused and to assess the loss. If it is the case of the respondent that STFI cover is not included in the policy, even on the very claim made by the petitioner, the claim could have been rejected in limine without resorting to any survey. The fact that survey had been conducted twice clearly shows that STFI cover stood covered else there was no necessity for the respondent to once again conduct a survey. Further, even the very first survey conducted by the respondent clearly show the inclusion of STFI cover, as non-inclusion of STFI cover in the policy would definitely have made the respondent not to survey even at the earliest point of time when the claim petition was presented.

xii) Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi & Anr. – Vs – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021 (7) SCC 151)

16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is specific exclusion with regard to STFI cover in the insurance policy, as is shown in the general clauses, which contains the warranties. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is no reference in the policy schedule with regard to the amount that has been charged under individual heads of cover, such as fire, STFI, etc. Such being the case, the stand of the petitioner that STFI cover is included for which the petitioner has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  ____________ paid premium is wholly misconceived. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the policy schedule merely states the total amount that has been paid towards premium and there is no break-up with regard to the premium for the various covers. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the stand of the petitioner that it has paid premium towards STFI cover is disputed by the respondent, as would be evident from the various communications which has emanated from the respondent for the representation submitted by the petitioner and the dispute with regard to such payment cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the matter has to be placed before the appropriate forum for being adjudicated by adducing evidence. When the issue in the present case involves disputed questions of fact, necessarily this Court has to relegate the parties to move before the appropriate forum and the disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court.

“7. Endorsement – Earthquake (Fire and Shock) – Add on Cover

8. Terrorism Damage Cover Endorsement

9. Terrorism Cancellation Clause

10. Terrorism Additional Exclusions”

38. In this background, on a careful perusal of the coverwise details, it is seen that premium amount for various covers is quoted, which has been extracted supra; while there is endorsement relating to certain aspects in the general clause, there is no endorsement with regard to STFI cover. In fact, as pointed out by the respondent, there is a specific exclusion insofar as STFI Perils are concerned. However, this Court is not for a moment suggesting that there is no inclusion of STFI in the policy, as premium is quoted for STFI cover as well. However, while there are specific inclusion in the general clause with regard to certain other covers, there is an endorsement with regard to STFI cover and there is a specific exclusion of STFI cover. However, the premium collected from the petitioner by the respondent does not in any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  ____________ way relate to the premium for the different covers, which is offered by the respondent. In such a scenario, necessarily oral and documentary evidence have to be adduced to show as to how the amount is arrived at and the covers for which premium is charged which aspect cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.