AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Solan, dated 26.5.1992, whereby the appellant "hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company" has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,645/as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of survey i.e., 28.8.1991 within 30 days from the date of the order.
THE relevant facts which are necessary to be mentioned for determining the points in controversy are that the respondent "hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant" is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business at Saproon deals with Agro Chemicals and Nutrients. THE complainant firm had got his godown alongwith stock worth Rs. 75,000/- insured with the Insurance Company against natural perils including fire, flood and lightening etc. for a period of one year w.e.f. 5.7.1991 to 4.7.1992. During the period when the insurance policy was in force, there was a heavy storm accompanied by torrential rains due to which stock worth Rs. 14,820/- belonging to the firm was completely damaged. THE claim was preferred with the Insurance Company, but the same has been repudiated merely on the grounds that the claim preferred by the complainant is not covered under the insurance cover as the policy cover is only for flood and fire. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has very strongly contended that the Surveyor has found that the loss sustained by the complainant in respect of godown and its stock was due to seepage and leakage of water from the wall, roof and ventilators and the complainant had failed to take due care and caution for maintaining the godown in a proper and safe condition. According to him, the case is not covered under the terms of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is within its right to reject the claim of the complainant. This submission is completely devoid of any force.
No doubt, the Insurance Cover Note at Annexure R-8 covers the risk of only flood and fire. We have, therefore, considered whether or not the present case is covered under flood. We have seen the original record of the case and the averments made in the original complaint that on intervening night of 21.8.1991 and 22.8.1991 a heavy storm accompanied with torrential rain occurred in Sparoon and as a result thereof stock lying in the godown of the complainant was damaged. These averments no doubt have been originally rebutted in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. However, later on by an application the complainant was permitted to amend the complaint whereby the dates when the heavy storm and torrential rain occurred were changed and subsequently amended written complaint was filed. In paragraph 4 of the amended complaint the dates were corrected and it was alleged by the complainant that during the period from 16.8.1991 to 18.8.1991, due to heavy storm accompanied with torrential rain, the stock lying in the godown was damaged. Since the dates of heavy storm and torrential rains were changed in the amended complaint, amended written statement was required to be filed to the amended complaint in order to show whether or not during the period 16.8.1991 to 18.8.1991, there was heavy storm accompanied with torrential rains as alleged. But no written statement to the amended complaint has been filed by the Insurance Company. Therefore, it stands admitted that during the period 16.8.1991 to 18.8.1991, heavy storm accompanied with torrential rain occurred in Sparoon.
THE question arises in that facts and circumstances whether or not the risk is covered under the Insurance Cover Note. We have perused the meaning of word torrent and torrential and flood in THE New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary''. THE word torrent, torrential has been interpreted as a voilent downpour of rain. THE meaning of the flood has also given as voilent outpouring of water or torrent a downpour. Having considered the meaning in THE New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, we have no doubt in our mind that torrential rain particularly accompanied with heavy storm can be a case of flood also. THErefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the present case of torrential rains accompanied with heavy storm does clearly fall under a case of flood, and the case is covered under the insurance policy. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no legal infirmity in the orders of the District Forum and the compensation has rightly been awarded. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the appellant has further stated that according to the Surveyor''s report loss has been sustained due to seepage and leakage of water and not due to the flood. As already discussed above that on intervening night 16.8.1991 to 18.8.1991, heavy storm accompanied with torrential rains occurred in Sparoon. This must have resulted in flood and the damage must have consequently been caused to the godown. ,
THE Surveyor himself has stated in the survey report that the loss was caused due to the seepage and leakage of the water from the roof, walls and ventilators. This can very well be caused due to torrential rain and heavy storm and flood. This rather substantiate the case of the complainant. THE report of the Surveyor that seepage and leakage was not due to flood but because of negligence on the part of the complainant to our mind to this extent is not correct. In the light of what is discussed above, there is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There is no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _____________