IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance – Business Shield Policy – Damage to building due to snowstorm – Peril of snowfall does not fall within exclusions – By applying General Conditions, claim of insured cannot be denied by Consumer Courts.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantinsured (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) aggrieved by the judgment of reversal dated 12.01.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal (in short ‘NCDRC’), setting aside the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (for brevity ‘SCDRC’), which had partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to pay a sum of Rs. 11,84,192/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.

3. The complainant (Society) had taken a ‘Business Shield Policy’ (comprehensive risk insurance policy) for its building. The policy was valid on the date of incident, i.e., 18.01.2004. On the said day, there was a heavy snowfall in Mussoorie followed by a snowstorm, resulting in damage to the building of the complainant. On intimation and filing the claim, it was repudiated by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that as per the report of the surveyor, the damage was caused due to accumulation of snow on the tin shade above the load bearing capacity, leading to its collapse. The said damage was not covered under the policy. For ready reference, the letter of repudiation of the claim dated 02.04.2014, is reproduced below as thus -

“We carefully examined the circumstances of loss, the documents submitted related to the claim and the survey report submitted by the surveyor.

It is observed that due to continuous snowfall; snow accumulated on the tin shade and weight of the accumulated snow exceeded the load bearing capacity and due to this the roof collapsed. As per the fire tariff SNOWFALL is not a named peril/event and hence the cause of loss is not covered under the policy.”

4. Consequently, complainant filed complaint before the SCDRC seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,04,430/- and interest @ 18% per annum. SCDRC vide order dated 31.05.2017 partly allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 11,84,192/- only along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved, appeal was filed by Insurance Company before NCDRC, which was allowed while observing in paragraph 16 as thus –

“16. It is an admitted position that the Complainant suffered damage of building due to snowfall. There is no stipulated peril listed in the policy providing cover for such damage. The Complainants have not even referred to any specific peril listed in the policy covering the damage due to snowfall. Such damage due to weather is reasonably foreseeable by those in the insured premises in the hill station and ought to have taken reasonable steps to protect the insured premises. Further, the damage occasioned in a graduated manner over a period of time on 18.01.2014 and it was reasonably feasible to prevent the snow accumulation with some efforts. Neither the reasonable care that was taken or efforts that were made to prevent such graduated accumulation of snow and damage to the tin shed, which could be normally foreseen were brought on record.”

5. The NCDRC, referring the judgment of ‘ Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2010) 10 SCC 567’ and ‘ Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) 3 SCC 455’, observed that the terms and conditions of the insurance policies require the insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property under the insurance. Therefore, the complainant, being owner of the insured premises ought to have been aware of the regular feature of s