Back
2009(3) Supreme 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 2002
Decided on : 01-04-2009
(b) Insurance Policy – Construction of – Court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in re-writing the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties – The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. (Para 15)
AIR 1966 SC 1644; (1999) 6 SCC 451; (2004) 8 SCC 644 – Relied upon.
(c) Insurance Policy – Construction of – The surveyors’ report cannot be taken aid of nor can it furnish the basis for construction of a policy – Such outside aid for construction of insurance policy is impermissible. (Para 16)
Facts of the case :
1. Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. was incorporated in 1993 with an object of setting up a floriculture project in the State of Maharashtra.
2. The Insurance Company issued a comprehensive Floriculture Insurance Policy on January 23,1996, period of insurance being from January 18,1996 to January 17,1997 and charged premium of Rs. 2,31,000/-.
3. On May 23,1996, according to the insured there was a severe storm/cyclone, which damaged the floriculture extensively and substantial damage was caused to the roofs and walls of the poly-houses. On June 18/19,1996, there was another storm/cyclone. As a result of which the floriculture project of the insured and the poly clothes and the roofs as well as walls of the poly-houses were extensively damaged; certain poly-houses even collapsed completely.
4. For the loss suffered in the first storm/cyclone, a claim for Rs.31,17,140/- was submitted by the insured with the Insurance Company. The insured submitted another claim for Rs.38,97,906/- in respect of loss suffered due to second storm/cyclone that occurred on June 18/19,1996.
5. The Insurance Company appointed M/s Standard Surveyors Private Limited as their Surveyors for assessing the loss claimed by the insured. The Surveyors finally submitted their report and assessed the loss suffered by the insured at Rs.4,77,355/- in respect of the first storm and Rs.95,443/- for the second storm reducing their earlier estimates.
6. The insured then approached the National Commission alleging therein deficiency of service by the Insurance Company in not settling the claim and sought direction to the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the insured in full and pay interest on due amount.
7. The National Commission held that at the time of taking policy only six poly-houses were in existence and there was no evidence or proof to substantiate that the insurance was covered for poly- houses 7, 8A and 8B. The National Commission recorded the admitted position that poly-houses 7, 8A and 8B were not in existence at the time of taking insurance policy. The National Commission held that the policy clearly mentioned the number of poly-houses as “six” and in view thereof the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,72,798/- on account of damages to these poly-houses (nos.1-6) during the storm/cyclone that hit on May 23,1996 and June 18/19,1996 alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of the first Surveyors report i.e. November 6,1997 upto the date of payment, failing which the rate of interest shall be @ 18% per annum.
Finding of the Court :
The impugned judgment cannot be faulted with.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.—
This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 (for short, ‘The Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated October 30, 2001 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘ National Commission’) whereby the complaint filed by the appellant for direction to the respondent to settle the insurance claim alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.25 lakh on account of mental agony, harassment and monetary loss came to be dismissed.
2. The sequence of facts may be noticed first. Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. came to be incorporated in 1993 with an object of setting up a floriculture project in the State of Maharashtra. In 1995, the company started negotiations with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) for a comprehensive floriculture insurance policy. On January 18,1996, the company (hereinafter referred to as ‘insured’) submitted a proposal to the Insurance Company for a comprehensive floriculture insurance of poly-house (Rs.1.25 crore), irrigation system (Rs.25 lakh), cost of cultivation of flowers (Rs.25 lakh) and input cost from first flowering to the harvest (Rs.25 lakh). The Insurance Company issued a comprehensive Floriculture Insurance Policy (‘Policy’, in short) on January 23,1996, period of insurance being from January 18,1996 to January 17,1997 and charged premium of Rs. 2,31,000/-. On May 23,1996, according to the insured there was a severe storm/cyclone, which damaged the floriculture extensively and substantial damage was caused to the roofs and walls of the poly-houses. On June 18/19,1996, there was another storm/cyclone. As a result of which the floriculture project of the insured and the poly clothes and the roofs as well as walls of the poly-houses were extensively damaged; certain poly-houses even collapsed completely. For the loss suffered in the first storm/cyclone, a claim for Rs.31,17,140/- was submitted by the insured with the Insurance Company. The insured submitted another claim for Rs.38,97,906/- in respect of loss suffered due to second storm/cyclone that occurred on June 18/19,1996.
3. The Insurance Company appointed M/s Standard Surveyors Private Limited as their Surveyors for assessing the loss claimed by the insured. The Surveyors submitted their report on October 24,1996 and assessed the loss suffered by the insured at Rs. 28,85,243/- in respect of the first storm. On October 28,1996, the Surveyors submitted its second report in respect of the second storm/cyclone and assessed the loss at Rs.34,81,214/-.
4. On November 28,1996, the Insurance Company informed the Surveyors that their report included loss to poly-houses Nos. 7, 8A and 8B whereas the policy covered only poly-houses 1 to 6. The Surveyors were, accordingly, asked to reassess the loss.
5. On December 19,1996, the Surveyors gave their clarification to the Insurance Company that all the poly-houses were covered under the policy and their assessment was correct and fair.
6. The Insurance Company, then, appointed M/s Jupiter Claim Consultants as investigators for verification of the claim. The insured was also asked to furnish necessary documents to the said investigators. The investigators are said to have submitted their report on September 12,1997 stating therein that they were not able to submit their certification as regard the cost of poly-houses Nos. 1 to 6 and other related matters categorically for sum insured and claim thereof.
7. On November 6,1997, the Surveyors submitted their addendum to the earlier report dated October 24,1996 with regard to the first storm and reduced the assessment of loss to Rs.4,77,355/-. The Surveyors submitted another addendum on February 16,1998 to the report dated October 28,1996 with regard to the second storm and reduced the assessment of loss to Rs.95,443/-.
8. The insured then approached the National Commission alleging therein deficiency of service by the Insurance Compan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
