VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE short question of ubiquitous importance which arises in this Writ Petition is whether a theft committed consequent to damage to a godown occasioned by a cyclone is covered by the Fire `c Policy and/or the Burglary and House Breaking Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company has refused to make payment on the grounds that the theft was a sequel to the cyclone that had caused catastrophe in Orissa and its environs. The Insurance Company has refused to acknowledge its liability on the specious reason that the theft was not preceded by a forcible and violent entry to the godown/warehouse.

( 2 ) REPEATED opportunities have been granted to the Respondents for filing their Counter affidavit but have not been availed of. Counsel for the respondents now states that a Counter Affidavit is not to be filed. Opportunity for this purpose is closed. The effect is that asseverations made in the writ petition must be assumed to have been admitted and therefore correct. Accordingly the factual matrix may be taken, inter alia, from the narration contained in paragraph four (4) of the writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or marketing of consumer merchandise such as electric fans, coolers, sewing machines, pump sets, diesel engines, piston rings, fuel injection, generators. It has a large number of godowns to store such goods, spread all over India including one such godown at Cuttak, orissa. To secure the goods lying in the godown at cuttak, Orissa, the Petitioner was desirous of obtaining an adequate insurance cover to take care of the risks of a variety of nature, including but not limited to the risk of fire, riotous and terrorist acts, malicious damage and damages caused to the premises and properties due to theft, burglary or house-breaking. The Respondent assured the Petitioner that they had appropriate insurance policies to cover such risks and losses in the event of such contingencies. The Respondent represented to the Petitioner that as per the printed paraphrasing of their insurance policies, the risks in question were covered under two distinctly documented `policy covers and hence instead of one, the Petitioner was required to take two separate cover-notes/policies. Acting upon and induced by such representations and assurances, the petitioner agreed to take/subscribe to the two separate policies/cover notes for the period staring from 1. 4. 1999 and ending on 31. 3. 2000 (midnight), covering risks inter- alia against fire, theft, burglary, riots and such other calamities attributable to nature and circumstances beyond its control. THE INSURANCE COVERS

( 3 ) THE description of the policies issued to the Petitioner is as follows: (a) Fire Policy dated 1. 4. 1999 bearing no. 040100/11/13/02/99 for Rs. 20 crores issued by the, with additional cover of special perils such as cyclone (subsequently enhanced to Rs. 27 crores on payment of additional premium of Rs. 1,44,398/- vide Fire endorsement dated 19. 08. 1999 ). (b) Burglary and House Breaking Policy (BHB policy) dated 1. 4. 1999 bearing no. 040100/46/05/4614/99 for Rs. 20 crores issued by respondent.

( 4 ) THE relevant provisions of the Fire policy are extracted below -- fire POLICY c In consideration of the insured named in the schedule hereto having paid to the UNITED INDIA INSURANCE company LTD. (hereinafter called the Company) the premium mentioned in the said Schedule, THE COMPANY AGREES, (Subject to the Conditions and Exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon that if after payment of the premium the Property insured described in the said Schedule, or any part of such property be destroyed or damaged by: 1. Fire. 2. Lightning 3. Explosion/implosion but excluding loss or damage. a) To boilers (other than domestic boilers) economisers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which steam is generated or their contents resulting from their own explosion/implosion. b) caused by centri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document