Genuine claims cannot be rejected on technical grounds of delay in intimation, and the insurer must examine the tenability of the claim on merits, as per IRDA's circular.

Rajiv Shakdher, J :--

1. The central issue raised in the writ petition is: whether or not the decision of the respondent to repudiate the petitioner’s claim for loss under the ‘contractor’s all risk insurance policy’ (hereafter referred to as policy), on the sole ground, that there had been a failure on its part to intimate by way of a written communication, the factum of occurrence of the calamity within the period of 14 days, as stipulated in clause 5 of the General Conditions (GC), was valid?

2. The issue has arisen in the background of the following circumstances :-

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a contractor by NHPC Ltd. for executing a project which required construction of new spurs and gabion structure on river Sharda, at Tanakpur, Banbassa in District Champawat, in the State of Uttarkhand (hereafter referred to as the subject works). This contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner on 26.04.2011. As per the contract, the petitioner was required to complete the work within three months.

2.2 The petitioner had taken out an insurance with respect to the subject works, which was initially effective between the period 16.05.2011 and 15.08.2011. Undisputedly, an endorsement was made whereby, the policy stood extended till 14.01.2012.

2.3 Under the contract awarded to the petitioner by NHPC, the construction of the subject works had to be carried out between RD2000 to 4880 mtrs. The work was divided into 5 schedules.

2.4 On 18.08.2011 flash flood occurred in the river Sharda, which resulted in disruption of a part of the subject works at a point in time when the petitioner had executed the third schedule.

2.5 Apparently, due to heavy monsoon, water was being released on a regular basis in river Sharda by the Tanakpur Power Station, which is located at Banbassa.

2.6 It is the petitioner’s case that on 25.08.2011, the intimation with regard to the loss was telephonically communicated to the respondent. However, since the immediate concern of the petitioner was to ensure the safety of its personnel and to rebuild the damaged portion of the subject works, as also to ensure that no further damage was caused, a formal intimation was sent via an e-mail dated 05.11.2011.

2.7 In response to the same, the respondent by a written mail dated 08.11.2011, called upon the petitioner to provide details of estimated loss so as to enable it to appoint a surveyor for the said purpose. Furthermore, the petitioner was also called upon to send a scanned copy of the policy.

2.8 The petitioner by an e-mail dated 08.11.2011 (which was sent a couple of hours later), indicated that the estimated damage, according to it, was a sum of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs, inclusive of manpower and material cost. Alongwith this e-mail, a copy of the policy was also sent to the respondent.

2.9 The respondent acted with due promptitude and by a e-mail sent on the same date i.e., 08.11.2011, notified the petitioner about the factum of appointment of Mr. Vinod Surma, as the surveyor in the matter. The surveyor’s contact details were also provided to the petitioner.

3. The surveyor, as instructed by the respondent, visited the site in issue for the first time on 16.11.2011.

3.1 On the said date, the surveyor gathered the information with regard to the fact that damage had occurred to the subject works on account of a flash flood in river Sharda. However, since, the representative of the petitioner could not give responses qua certain queries that the surveyor had, the surveyor requested him to arrange a meeting with an engineer employed with NHPC Ltd, being the owner of project.

3.2 A meeting for the aforesaid purpose was fixed on 24.12.2011. At this meeting, one Mr. Jagmal, Assistant Manager, NHPC, was available for rendering the necessary explanations, which were sought by the surveyor.

3.3 Consequent thereto, the petitioner provided the necessary data and documents sought by the surveyor along with its letters dated 27.03.2012 and 27.04.2012.

3.4 Despite this, there was n