Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs BABUL DEV

THIS appeal arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura, whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint.

THE facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the State Commission are as under : The complainant, proprietor of M/s. Giridhari Bakery, Agartala, had his show-room, bakery items, stationery goods and similar other goods and furniture, insured with the opposite party, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company for Rs. 4 lakhs for the period 19.7.1993 to 18.7.1994 and paid the requisite premium. The insurance policy covers the perils of fire, theft, flood, etc. It is the case of the complainant that due to floods in Agartala during the period 20th July to 22nd July, 1993 he had sustained a loss of Rs. 1,95,165/-. The damaged goods were destroyed by the Agartala Municipality at trenching ground at Hapania outside the Municipal area on 4.8.1993 and a destruction certification was also issued by the Inspector to this effect. The complainant then preferred a claim to the Insurance Company for an amount of Rs. 1,95,165/-. The Insurance Company repudiated the policy on the ground that the policy did not cover the risk of flood and further that the Shopkeeper''s insurance policy contained a condition that flood is not covered by the policy. This had led the complainant to approach the State Commission by claiming compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/-.

In response to the policy, the Insurance Company filed its written version wherein it took the stand that the complaint was time barred, that the alleged flood did not occur at Agartala on the alleged dates and that no damage or destruction was caused to the building and contents of the bakery shop of the complainant by flood as alleged, and that the insurance policy did not cover risks as alleged by the complainant.

THE State Commission upon hearing both the parties, considering the material placed on record, i.e. the insurance policy, the copy of the certificate of the Municipality, letter of Division Manager, copy of the original bills, returned the finding that though the Insurance Company was contending that the policy does not cover floods but it did nowhere in the reply specifically denied that and consequently held that the Insurance Company was deficient in rendering service. On the basis of the above finding the State Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, i.e. Rs. 2,30,000/- on account of damage to the bakery items, furniture and building, Rs. 70,000/- for dislocation and loss of business and Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, to the complainant to be paid within two months from the date of that order, failing which interest at the rate of 10% p.a. would be charged till the date of payment. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has come in appeal before us.

HEARD learned Counsels appearing on both sides. We have also gone through the order of the State Commission and examined the documents on record. Counsel for the Insurance Company tried to argue before us that flood is not covered under the policy. The present claim was on account of inundation and flooding of the bakery shop which resulted in damage. Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that on the basis of some handwritten endorsement on the proposal form whereby flood risk was excluded. However, on close scrutiny, we find that the State Commission rightly arrived at a conclusion that this appears to be an interpolation as compared to the policy which was issued after the proposal form and clearly covers the flood risk in Section 1 the policy clause (b) flood, inundation, storm, tempest, hurricane, tornado or cyclone are covered specifically. In the face of this, the argument of the Counsel for the Insurance Company has no merit. While the amount of loss on account of damage to bakery items, stationery goods, furniture and building is not seriously challenged before us, we do not find any evidence worth the name to sustain the award of dislocation and loss of business, and also compensation for mental agony and tension. Consequently, the award of Rs. 2,30,000/- is upheld and the awards of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for dislocation and loss of business and compensation for mental agony respectively, are set aside. Rest of the order of the State Commission is sustained as it is. The first appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal disposed of.