2023 3 Supreme 1 ; 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 533
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
VERSUS
Vedic Resorts And Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2019
Decided On : 17-05-2023
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Wherever an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for Insurer to show that case falls within purview of such clause.
(2) Though Surveyor’s Report is not the last and final one nor is so sacrosanct as to incapable of being departed from, however, there has to be some cogent and satisfactory reasons or grounds made out by Insurer for not accepting Report.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Insurance – Damage to property due to crowd violence – Claim repudiated by Insurance Company by invoking exclusion clause on the plea that it was an outcome of malicious act – Compensation of Rs. 202.216 lakhs along with 9% interest awarded by National Commission – Wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for Insurer to show that case falls within purview of such clause – In case of ambiguity, contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of insured – Appellant-Insurance Company had failed to discharge its burden of bringing the case within exclusionary clause of policies – Though Surveyor’s Report is not the last and final one nor is so sacrosanct as to incapable of being departed from, however, there has to be some cogent and satisfactory reasons or grounds made out by Insurer for not accepting Report – In instant case, appellant-Insurance Company has failed to make out any such cogent reason for not accepting Surveyor’s Report – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 2012, whereby Commission has allowed the complaint filed by complainant (respondent herein), and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 202.216 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from six months from the date of lodgment of the claim till the date on which payment is made.
Findings of Court:
Even if allegations against said Gaffar Molla and his associates are taken at their face value, it is difficult to accept contention raised by Counsel for the appellant that the damage caused by the frenzied mob which had chased said Gaffar Molla and his associates, was caused due to malicious act on the part of the respondent and therefore was excluded from the coverage in view of Clause V(d) of subject Policy.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred :ARMS ACT : S.25, S.27CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.23, S.67INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34, S.120(b), S.506, S.212
Cases Referred:.
JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The aggrieved appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 2012, whereby the Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent herein), and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 202.216 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from six months from the date of lodgment of the claim till the date on which the said payment is made.
2. The respondent-complainant, running a Resort at Village Shikharkpur, P.S. Rajarhat, District 24- Paraganas, (South) of West Bengal had obtained two insurance policies from the appellant-Insurance Company, one being Policy No. 100900/11 / 08/3300000420 for the period from 16th September, 2008 to 15th September, 2009 in respect of the buildings of the said Resort with plant and machineries accessories and furniture etc. and the other being Policy No. 100900/11/09/3100000270 for the period from 13th July, 2009 to 12th July, 2010 in respect of two hotel buildings at the said resort with stock.
3. As per the case of the respondent-complainant on 23rd August, 2009 at about 5.00 p.m., a mob of about 200-250 persons entered the resort and damaged/destroyed the insured property resulting in loss to the complainant. The incident was reported to the police and the FIR being No. 144 of 2009 was registered on the written complaint given by one Santanu Bhattacharjya, General Manager of Vedic Village Resort, P.S. Rajarhat.
4. Another FIR being No. 143 of 2009 was registered at P.S. Rajarhat on 23rd August, 2009 for the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B, 506, 212 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against one Gaffar Molla and his associates, at the instance of a written complaint given by one Monirul Sardar to the effect that when the said complainant and his brother were returning home, they saw a football match going on at Sekharpur Adarsha Sangha Ground. When the said football match was going on, suddenly one Gaffar Molla and his associates started firing and hurling bombs to postpone the match. As a result, thereof, the brother of the compl
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas