RAKESH UTPAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant constructed House No. F-19/ 58 in Sector, 8, Rohini in the year 1992. The complainant had been obtaining insurance policy from the opposite party from year to year covering risk against fire and damage due to earthquake, flood and inundation etc. The last renewed policy for Rs.35 lakhs was in force for the period 12.4.1994 to 11.4.1995. From 24.7.1994 to 31.7.1994, there was heavy down-pour. On 28.7.1994, there was an earthquake in Delhi region. The case of the complainant was that as a result of heavy rains the flood water entered the building and inundated the basement of the building and as a result of rain and earthquake the building developed cracks and suffered substantial damage. The Insurance Company was informed, Mr. A. K. Dhingra of M/s. Select Surveyors, inspected the building on 4.8.1994 and found water still standing in the basement floor. He also noticed damage to the building including cracks at various places. He took photographs and submitted his report dated 24.9.1994 to the Insurance Company. The complainant supplied necessary information and documents to the Surveyor as desired by him (the Surveyor) and applied to the Meteorology Department regarding the relevant data in connection with the earthquake. The Surveyor again inspected the premises on 7.9.1994 and informed the complainant that the claim was not payable being not covered by the policy. The complainant represented explaining the facts but the Surveyor struck to his view. According to the complainant, the loss was estimated at Rs.3,70,000/- which for want of timely repairs increased to Rs.4,85,000/-. Legal notice dated 31.10.1997 was served to which reply dated 7.11.1994 was received. In these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint on 23.11.1994 claiming Rs.5,06,000/- on account of compensation as per details mentioned in para 18 of the complaint.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the opposite party it was admitted that during the year 1992-93, the complainant had obtained insurance policy for the house for Rs.25 lacs which was increased to Rs.35 lacs for the year 1993-94 and the same was renewed for the year 1994-95. The admitted case on both sides is that prior to the present claim the complainant had not made any claim under any of the earlier insurance policies. The main stand of the Insurance Company is that according to the Surveyor appointed by it, the loss appeared to have occurred on account of seepage from the basement floor and not on account of either flood or earthquake. Agreeing with the view of the Surveyor, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim and before the repudiation could be conveyed, the complainant had filed the present complaint.

(3.) The complainant filed his detailed affidavit by way of evidence alongwith newspaper report of Punjab Kesri dated 29.7.1994 regarding the earthquake resulting in damage to old buildings. The opposite parties filed affidavit of Mr. R. B. Shami, Manager in the Regional Office of \he Insurance Company, New Delhi alongwith the copies of the correspondence, report dated 24.9.1994 alongwith photographs of, Mr. A. K. Dhingra prepared for the Surveyors appointed by the Insurance Company, the correspondence exchanged between the complainant and Surveyor and that with the Company the data provided by the Meteorology Department and the detailed report dated 31.3.1995 made available by the Director General of Meteorology Department.