(1.) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.1420/2006 which was decided in favour of M/s Sathyanarayana Setty & Sons, Respondent herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum.
(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had taken a Fire and Special Perils Policy from the Petitioner/Insurance Company in respect of his business premises for storing fire crackers from 06.08.2004 to 05.08.2005 for an assured sum of Rs.30 lakhs. Due to heavy rains in Mysore City on 10.07.2004, 16.07.2004 and 04.08.2004, leakages and dampness occurred in the walls as a result of which the fire crackers stored in the premises were totally damaged and the same could neither be sold nor made fit for use. Respondent, therefore, filed a claim with the Petitioner/Insurance Company which was repudiated vide communication dated 06.10.2004 informing him that his claim is not covered under specified "risks" mentioned in the policy. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner/Insurance Company be directed to pay him Rs.90,000/- towards the loss suffered and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.
(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that following his complaint and claim sent by the Respondent, Petitioner had appointed a Surveyor & Loss Assessor to conduct the survey and assess the loss and also find out its causes. The Surveyor in his report dated 04.10.2004, after visiting the site confirmed that the damage had occurred to the fire crackers stored in the premises due to seepage of the water inside the premises from the roof but this occurred because the building was old and not maintained properly. Further, there was fungus formation due to the seepage for long periods for which no action was taken and which remained undetected. Since the damage to the fire crackers was due to seepage and rain water over a period of time and not due to "Storm, Hurricane, Typhoon, Cyclone, Tempest, tornado Flood and Inundation" as specifically provided in the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated.