Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The learned counsel has also relied upon the reply dated 22-10-2013 sent by IRDA under RTI Act, stating therein that generally insurance companies charge extra premium to provide add on cover for hydro static loss in a motor vehicle policy.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-company is that since the major damage to the vehicle occurred on account of hydro static loss and they had not charged extra premium in order to cover the said loss while issuing the policy to the insured, they are not liable to pay for the damage on account of hydro static loss to the vehicle.

10. We have perused the insurance policy issued by the petitioner-company to the complainant. The said policy while covering damage due to flood, cyclone, hailstorm, etc., does not exclude the loss to the vehicle due to hydro static lock. In the absence of such an exclusion, the insurance company will have to reimburse cost of repair of the vehicle on account of damage by heavy rains and flooding irrespective of whether the said loss occurred due to hydro static lock or for some other reason. If despite IRDA permitting charging of an extra premium for reimbursement in respect of loss due to hydro static lock the petitioner-company did not charge such a premium, it is only itself to blame for such a situation because the policy issued by it while granting insurance against damage due to flooding, etc., did not exclude the loss/damage to the vehicle on account of the aforesaid reason. Therefore, in our opinion, in a damage of this nature, unless expressly excluded, in the insurance policy, damage to the vehicle on account of hydro static lock would also be covered for the purpose of reimbursement. For this reason alone the petitioner-company must necessarily fail.

11. Even otherwise we find that there is no evidence of damages, which the surveyor excluded for the purpose of reimbursement, having been caused on account of hydro static lock. Neither the surveyor has stated so in his report nor has the insurance company filed any opinion/report from an automobile engineer or from the workshop where the vehicle was repaired to prove that the damage which it was not ready to pay had occurred on account of hydro static lock. This is yet another reason for which the insurance company has to fail.

12. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the company would be liable to reimburse the insured only for the loss/damage which are covered under the insurance policy. There is no dispute with respect to the aforesaid proposition but in the case before us we find that loss by flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm, etc., is specifically covered under the policy. Since as per the literature provided by the petitioner the hydro static lock happens when water enters the engine of the vehicle, any damage on account of hydro static lock in our opinion would be covered under the aforesaid clause, unless expressly excluded in the insurance policy.