ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Ravuri Venkateswarlu

THIS is an application, seeking condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned, subject to the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/ - to the complainant within two weeks from today. The application stands disposed of accordingly. The complainant/respondent obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner company in respect of his shop where he was selling lubricative oils. According to the complainant, in the early hours of 16.12.2010, the roof of the shop fell on its floor as a result of which the stock, lubricatives kept in the shop got damaged. A claim was accordingly lodged by the complainant/respondent with the petitioner company. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company Er. V. Radha Krishna assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.1,76,881/ -. However, the claim was rejected by the insurance company vide its letter dated 02.8.2011 on the ground that the damage to the stock had occurred due to building slab having been collapsed, whereas the risk covered under the policy was restricted to (i) fire (ii) riots, strike, malicious and terrorism damage. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of the complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the complainant had taken a Standard File and Special Peril Policy to cover certain risks and coverage taken by him was clearly stated in the Schedule to the Policy. It was further stated that falling of roof slab was not covered within the purview of the policy taken by the complainant.

VIDE its order dated 22.2.2013, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without any order as to costs. Being aggrieved form the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 09.7.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,180/ - plus Rs.69,275.45 to the complainant along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.

A perusal of the insurance policy issued to the complainant, which is available at page 35 and 36 of our paper book, clearly shows that though, the insurance policy taken by the complainant was a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, the coverage available to him under the policy was restricted to fire cover, terrorism cover and earthquake cover. The aforesaid cover -wise details have expressly recorded in the Schedule to the policy. Therefore, despite the nomenclature of the policy taken by the complainant, he was entitled to reimbursement form the insurance company only in case he was to suffer damage on account of fire, terrorism or earthquake. Admittedly, no fire took place in the shop of the complainant. Admittedly, the loss to the complainant did not take place due to some earthquake nor was it on account of an act of terrorism. Therefore, going by the terms of the policy, the damage sustained by the complainant was not reimbursable to the complainant.

THE State commission has taken the view that since the policy taken by the complainant was styled as Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, it covered the following perils: "a) Fire b) Lightning c) Explosion/Implosion d) Aircraft damage e) Riot, strike, Malicious damage (RSMD perils) f) Storm, Tempest, Flood, Inundation, Hurricane, Cyclone, Typhoon and Tornado (STFI) g) Impact by any Rail/Road Vehicle or animal belonging to third parties h) Subsidence/Landslide including rockslide i) Bursting and / or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus j) Leakage from Automatic Sprinkler Installation k) Missile Testing operation l) Pollution or contamination resulting from any of the above perils. m) Any insured peril resulting from pollution and contamination n) Bush Fire".

THOUGH , in our view, the policy issued to the complainant did not cover any risk other than fire, earthquake and act of terrorism, the complainant would not be entitled to any reimbursement from the petitioner company, even if we proceed on the assumption that the perils stated hereinabove, were also covered under the policy taken by him. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that fall of the roof slab would be covered under Clause (h). In our view, there is no merit in the contention. There was no incident of landslide, subsidence or rockslide. Neither there is any such allegation in the complaint nor was this the case of the complainant in the claim lodged with the insurance company. Even the report of the SHO does not indicate that the roof slab had fallen due to subsidence or landslide. Therefore, the said falling of the roof slab would not be covered under any of the perils stated hereinabove.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.