Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal Nos.894/2006 & 895/2006 in favour of M/s Dani Mourdhwaj Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).

In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had contended that he had taken two insurance policies in respect of his Cold Storage and Machinery from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for Rs.32 lakhs and for Potatoes stored in the cold storage for an agreed value of Rs.90 lakhs. Both these were inter alia insured against loss due to destruction or damage directly caused by storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood or inundation etc. On the midnight of 18.03.2003, because of a sudden storm there was a flood in the Ganges which was so severe that water entered into the cold storage of the Respondent due to which the insulation system broke down causing extensive damage to the temperature controlling system which stopped working and as a result of which potatoes worth over Rs.15 lakhs stored in the cold storage were destroyed. The Petitioner/Insurance Company was informed about these incidents on telephone on 18.03.2003 itself after which a Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss.

Counsel for Respondent on the other hand brought to our notice judgments of the National Commission in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr. II(2009) CPJ 311 (NC) and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gondamal Hardyal Mal IV(2009) CPJ 165 (NC) wherein this Commission had concluded in respect of an identical insurance policy that floods also means outpouring of water and on this analogy would include both inundation and seepage. Counsel for Respondent further contended that the contention of the Counsel for Petitioner that the word directly used in the insurance policy exclude any outcome of the flood such as seepage has also been dealt with by the National Commission in Bajaj Allianz (supra) wherein the Commission has accepted the definition of Direct Cause (as per the P.Ramanatha Aiyars The Law Lexicon, Law Dictionary) as that which sets in motion a train of events which brings about result without intervention of any force, operation or working actively from new and independent source; or one without which the injury would not have happened. In the instant case the seepage was a direct result of the floods and the relevant clause in the Policy has to be interpreted accordingly. Regarding the quantum of loss assessed by the Surveyor after taking into account under insurance, Counsel for Respondent contended that no basis per se had been given by the Surveyor for concluding that the evaluation of the building etc. was Rs.1,20,00,000/- and this had been done in a whimsical manner. Further, once the Petitioner/Insurance Company had insured the building for Rs.32 lakhs and had fixed the premium accordingly after due inspection, it cannot taken now a different stand.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon condition VI of the policy, which reads as under:-

VI. STORM, CYCLONE, TYPHOON, TEMPEST, HURRICNE, TORNADO, FLOOD & INUNDATION   Loss destruction or damage directly caused by storm cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature.

It is his case that since this was a question of leakage of water from roof, hence, it is not covered under any of the perils covered under the Policy.

Thus, in consonance with and following our own findings on the subject, we are of the view that in the instant case the seepage which was caused directly by the flood was covered by the insurance policy and the claim was wrongly repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company. So far as the issue of quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, we note from the report of the Surveyor that he had assessed the value of the cold storage to be Rs.1,20,00,000/- whereas it was insured for Rs.32 lakhs. Thus, after taking into account the under insurance factor assessed the net loss as being Rs.2,34,871/- whereas the actual loss assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.8,80,767.80p. The Surveyor has not recorded any reasons on the basis of which he has assessed the total value of the cold storage as Rs.1,20,00,000/-. The contention of the Counsel for Petitioner that this was done after taking into account the quotations obtained from three contractors which form a part of the Surveyors report does not inspire much confidence because the quotations were only in respect of the insulation system wherein the contractors assessed its cost to be between Rs.12,11,000/- to 13,11,082/- while the Surveyor has assessed it to be Rs.17,61,534/- without assigning any reasons. In the same way, we are unable to accept the other valuations in the absence of any reason whatsoever for recording these findings.