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.