NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PAVAN P SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is against the Order of the State Commission, Delhi, wherein the appellant. National Insurance Company, has been directed to pay to the respondents herein an amount of Rs. 5,42,900/ - with interest @ 18% p.a. from 7th December, 1992 till the date of payment alongwith the amount of Rs. 15,000/ - as compensation within a period of three months. The admitted facts of this case are that Mr. Pavan P. Sahani and others, who are the owners of flat bearing No. A -81, Himalaya House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, let it out to M/s. N.K.T. (India) on a monthly rent of Rs. 47,412/ -. The respondent had this flat insured with the appellant. Insurance Company, for a sum of Rs. "19.50 lakhs on the following two counts: (a). Building including the built in fixtures etc. for Rs. 4,50,000/ - (b). Consequential loss of rent from the above for a period of 36 months. Rs. 15,00,000/ - As a consequence of a fire that broke out in the 11th floor of Himalaya House on 30.4.91, the entire Himalaya House was sealed by an order of the Chief Fire Officer effective from 1.5.91. The building reopened for occupation and use on 15.11.91 and the respondents got possession of the flat on 14.1.92. During the period from 1.5.91 to 14.1.92 no rent was received by the respondents for this flat and, therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,708/ - from the appellant. Insurance Company, on account of loss of rent which was allowed by the State Commission alongwith an interest of 18% from 7.12.92 till the date of payment. The State Commission also allowed rent loss for a period of three months from 14.1.92 saying that this period is a reasonable one for finding another tenant.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the order of the State Commission is erroneous on the ground that the loss of rent could be claimed only if the concerned flat had been rendered unfit for occupation as a result of fire in the flat itself and not because of sealing of the building by the Chief Fire Officer on account of non -availability of the fire fighting equipment in Himalaya House. In other words, the contention of the Insurance Company is that as the Insurance Policy did not cover the claim of the complainants where the building is confiscated, commandeered or requisitioned by any lawfully constituted authority, resulting into loss or damage occasioned by permanent or temporary dispossession, no claim for lost rent could be accepted. The fact of fire in the 11th floor, the sealing of building by the Chief Fire Officer as a consequence, the non -occupation of the concerned flat and thus loss of rent are not in dispute. The only point in dispute is whether the sealing of the building was the direct consequence of fire in the 11th floor or it was due to the non -availability of fire fighting equipment in the building. The verdict of the State Commission is that the loss of the rent of the complainant is a consequence of the fire and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to be compensated for this loss as covered by the policy taken by them from the appellant Insurance Company.

(3.) WE , therefore, see no reason to interfere with the Order of the State Commission. This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.