NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AMRISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are being briefly noted. Vide policy of insurance, Annexure R 1 appellant had covered the risk of residential building qua earthquake (fire and shock). Risk covered was to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 and premium was also paid by the respondent for this sum. Mishap having taken place during the validity of this policy, is admitted and fire insurance claim form was also filled in by the respondent vide Annexure R. 3. Its Col. 5 being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow :

(2.) In the background of these admitted fats now the trouble starts. Respondent filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging therein that on 29.7.2003 due to excessive rains, lightening and thunder the house of the complainant collapsed and household articles lying in the house were damaged on 31.7.2003. With a view to substantiate his case further, respondent pleaded that since he had insured the building under Standard Fire Policy, automatically it denotes that the risk of damage due to fire, flood, theft and other natural calamities etc. is also covered under the comprehensive policy. This was the stand of the respondent before the District Forum below and great emphasis was laid by Mr. R.P. Singh on behalf of the respondent on Annexure R. 2, the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage). In the context of this Annexure, it may be pointed out that the appellant equally relied upon the contents of this Annexure R. 2. Further stand of the appellant in reply to the complaint was that since risk of the damage to the house because of heavy rains was not covered under the policy as also no premium had been charged in this behalf, as such it is not liable. Limited risk was covered of earthquake (fire and shock). Surveyor had also reported that the damage was caused due to heavy rains and the house was out of use and was locked for a pretty long time. Finally, the District Forum below vide impugned order in Consumer Complaint No. 125/2004, dated 3.2.2006 has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 to the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the final payment of amount, besides cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 2,000. Rest of the claim was declined. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the District Forum below. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant made a precise submission that his client had insured the house in question and the risk covered was specific and express for which premium was charged. In case the appellant wanted to get risk of his house covered qua other situations as narrated in Annexure R. 2, to which a reference is made in the insurance policy, Annexure R. 1, it could be done provided extra premium had been paid. So far payment of premium is concerned, it was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, according to him, his client's case is covered by Annexure R. 2, as according to him, the term 'earthquake (fire and shock)', also includes storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation. Thus, according to him, impugned order deserves to be upheld while dismissing the appeal with costs.