Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) discern whether any discount was granted for excluding a particular peril or whether an additional premium was charged for any add-on cover; or

(iii) understand the technical expression "STFI" or its scope without explicit disclosure by the insurer.

4. Upon consideration of the survey report and the submissions of both parties, the Commission held that although the policy contained an endorsement excluding STFI perils, the respondents were not entirely free from negligence. Holding them contributorily negligent, the Commission reduced the assessed loss by 25%, and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 4,56,347/-, along with Rs. 20,000/- as litigation compensation (total Rs. 4,76,347/-), within 30 days; failing such payment, the amount was to carry interest @ 6% per annum.

5. The appellants have assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is legally unsustainable. It is contended that since the policy was a renewal of the earlier policy, it amounted to a continuation and repetition of the original contract, thereby reviving all prior terms and conditions, including the exclusion of STFI perils. It is further submitted that the respondents never objected to such exclusion at any stage. According to the appellants, once the exclusion existed in successive policies, the Commission erred in presuming that the insured was granted any rebate by excluding STFI risks.

It is also not in dispute that a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy ordinarily cover a wide range of risks, including storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation, as is evident from Clause VI of the appellants' own policy document.

12. In "Shree Ambica Medical Stores and Others vs. Surat Peoples Co- operative Bank Limited and Others reported as (2020) 13 SCC 564", the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the insured had paid an extra premium for STFI coverage, which was subsequently refunded. It was in this factual backdrop that the Court held that renewal revived the earlier terms and that the insured, knowing the refund and exclusion, could not claim STFI coverage. The ratio of that judgment turned upon the insured's explicit knowledge of the exclusion and is distinguishable on the facts.

20. Consequently, the appellants cannot draw support from the argument that no premium was paid for STFI coverage. When the policy is comprehensive and styled as covering special perils, the insurer cannot rely upon a concealed exclusion clause to defeat the consumer's legitimate expectations.

21. Much was argued regarding the fact that the policy had been renewed from time to time, implying knowledge on the part of the insured. Reliance was placed on "Shree Ambica Medical Stores and Others vs. Surat Peoples Co-operative Bank Limited and Others". That case is distinguishable, as the premium for STFI coverage had been returned to the consumer, clearly establishing knowledge of exclusion. No such circumstance exists here.