Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the appellants also agree to pay the respondents under Consequential Loss (Fire) Policy that if any building or other property or any part thereof used by the insured at the premises for the purpose of Business, be destroyed or damaged by the perils covered under the fire policy and the business carried on by the insured at the premises be in consequence thereof interrupted or interfered with, then the Company will pay the insured in respect of each item, namely, the amount of loss resulting from such interruption or interference in accordance with the provision contained therein. While so, on 13.05.2012, “Severe Cyclonic Storm” with Hurricane wind and rain and lightening has been occurred in and around the factory area from 00:50 to 02:10, 20:35 to 23:35 hours IST and continued on the following days accompanied by rain, Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation (STFI Cover). As a result, the insured property namely, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 Solar Panels and other materials were badly damaged and thin sheets of solar panels thrown away, were erected on the table and spread over within the premises of factory area. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the weather report issued by the office of the Director of India Meteorological Department (IMD), Jaipur Station dated 02.07.2012 for the period from 11.05.2012 to 16.05.2012 is an evidence to show that the cyclonic storm took place in and around the respondents' factory on various dates and the said occurrence had also been reported in local newspaper. Since the same was duly reported to the first appellant requesting him to register a claim in the claim register and depute a Surveyor to assess extent of loss suffered due to damage caused to the insured property by STFI perils, the Surveyor had visited the factory on 29.05.2012 and conducted preliminary survey at the factory and submitted his report directly to the insurer without giving a copy of the preliminary survey report to the respondents. Thereafter, the Surveyor suggested the respondents' Manager to collect all the damaged Solar Panels, which were spread over within the premises of factory and keep them at the site of factory for his verification. Accordingly, the respondents, by engaging a technical staff, collected all the damaged Solar Panels and other materials from the factory area and kept on the site of factory. Again on 26.11.2012, the Surveyor came to the factory and verified the damaged materials and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 advised the respondents to submit a claim bill/estimate of loss suffered due to the damaged caused to the insured property by STFI perils. Accordingly, the respondents had imported new solar panels from abroad and replaced all damaged solar panels to workable condition and submitted actual loss for Rs.1,16,68,921/- and Rs.58,64,642/- under Fire and Special Peril Policy and the sum of Rs.23,79,150/- and Rs.21,66,037/- under Business Interruption (Fire) Policy.

3.2.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that since the second appellant misconstrued the scope of policy and legal definition of 'Storm' defined in the dictionary, the reasons stated by the second appellant are wrong and contrary to the facts of the case. Moreover, the appellants did not consider the weather report issued by the Office of the Director of Meteorological Department, Jaipur. Since the reasons stated by the second appellant are not supported by the legal evidence except on the observation of Surveyor, the rejection of the claim by the second appellant is unjust and unfair. Though the cause of loss has already been reported by the Surveyor, who has given his report stating the damages to the solar panels due to strong wind and the Surveyor has also submitted his final assessment report on the basis of the self assessment of loss assessed by the respondents/Insured and the same was taken into consideration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 by the Surveyor, the second appellant has not properly appreciated the legal definition of Storm defined in the law dictionary and General Clause Act. Therefore, the respondents are liable to indemnify the insured to the extent of actual loss suffered by them in view of risk covered under the Fire Policy and it is an obligation on the part of the appellants to settle the claim of the respondents, as the insured properties were extensively damaged due to STFI Perils covered under the Policies. Further, the occurrence took place during the period of insurance and the occurrence of loss due to storm was supported by legal evidence such as weather report, photographs and also bills and invoices.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018

5.It is the case of the respondents plaintiffs that on 13.05.2012, a “Severe Cyclonic Storm” with Hurricane wind, rain and lightening occurred in and and around the factory area from 00:50 to 02:10, 20:35 to 23:35 hours IST and continued on the following days accompanied by rain, Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation (STFI Cover). As a result, the insured property, namely, Solar Panels and other materials were badly damaged and thin sheets of solar panels thrown away due to storm, were erected on the table and spread over within the premises of the factory area of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that the weather report issued by the office of the Director of India Meteorological Department (IMD), Jaipur Station dated 02.07.2012 for the period from 11.05.2012 to 16.05.2012 is an evidence to show that the cyclonic storm took place in and around the respondents' factory on various dates and the said occurrence had also been reported in local newspaper. In this regard, on 26.11.2012, the Surveyor came to the respondents' factory and verified the damaged materials and advised them to submit a claim bill/estimate of loss suffered due to damaged caused to the insured property by STFI perils. Despite the same, the appellants have not come forward to pay the amount of claim of insured. Since the cause of action for the suits arose in Chennai, the policies were issued in Chennai and the appellants were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 carried on business in Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the respondents have come to this Court to recover the compensation of Rs.1,40,48,071/- and Rs.80,30,679/- and the sum of Rs.25,28,640/- and Rs.14,45,508/- towards interest, which totally comes to Rs.1,65,76,711/- and Rs.94,76,187/- respectively payable to the respondents.

11.While coming to the third question namely, whether rejection of the policies made by the appellants was valid, it could be seen from the two material evidences namely, Ex.P4/the weather report issued by the office of the Director of India, Meteorological Department, dated 02.07.2012, Jaipur Station for the period from 11.05.2012 to 16.05.2012 and the local newspaper report that on 13.05.2012, “Severe Cyclonic Storm” with Hurricane wind and rain and lightening has been occurred in and around the factory area from 00:50 to 02:10, 20:35 to 23:35 hours IST and continued on the following days accompanied by rain, Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation (STFI Cover). As a result, the insured property namely, Solar Panels and other materials were badly damaged and thin sheets of solar panels thrown away, were erected on the table https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 and spread over within the premises of factory area. Since the same was duly reported to the first appellant requesting him to register a claim in the claim register and depute a Surveyor to assess the extent of loss suffered due to damage caused to the insured property by STFI perils, the Surveyor had visited the factory on 29.05.2012 and conducted preliminary survey at the factory and submitted his report directly to the insurer, without giving a copy of the preliminary survey report to the respondents. Thereafter, the Surveyor suggested the respondents' Manager to collect all the damaged Solar Panels, which were spread over within the premises of factory and keep them at the site of factory for his verification. Accordingly, the respondents, by engaging a technical staff, collected all the damaged Solar Panels and other materials from the factory area and kept on the site of factory. Again on 26.11.2012, the Surveyor came to the factory and verified the damaged materials and advised the respondents to submit a claim bill/estimate of loss suffered due to the damaged caused to the insured property by STFI perils. Ex.P6/Series are the photocopies of the final loss assessment report of Surveyor dated 12.01.2013. When the appellants, accepting the risk, issued the Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage) Nos.71030011110100000135 and 71030011110100000134 and Business Interruption (Fire) Policy Nos.71030011110500000002 and 71030011110500000003 to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A. Nos.282 & 283 of 2018 respondents and their own Surveyor, deputed by the appellants, assessing the final loss, has given his assessment report dated 12.01.2013, the rejection of the policies made by the appellants was not valid. Therefore, the third question is answered accordingly.