IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance contract is a species of commercial transactions and it must be construed like
any other contract as per its own terms and conditions.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—M/s Modi Motors Agencies Private Limited, the complainant herein has alleged that complainant being authorised dealer of Hyundai vehicles in Thane and Mumbai, the vehicles manufactured by M/s Hyundai Motors are transported to the premises of the complainant at Thane, Goregaon etc. and they are stored there pending sales of the said vehicles to their customers. The complainant company with a view to secure the vehicles stored at various places obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party in the year 2000. Thereafter, the complainant obtained the insurance policies on year to year basis. It is the case of the complainant that insurance policy issued in favour of the complainant was Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy which included the risk from Storm, Tempest, Flood and Inundation (in short, ‘STFI’). It is further alleged that in the year 2005 on 26th & 27th July, 2005 due to heavy rains, the stock yard of the complainant at Bhiwadi got flooded as a result of which number of cars parked at the stockyard were damaged. The complainant intimated the insurance company about the damage. A surveyor was appointed who assessed the damage and despite of surveyor report confirming the loss caused to the complainant, the insurance company opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that insurance cover was not in respect of any loss caused due to STFI.

2. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the complainant filed the consumer complaint seeking damages to the tune of Rs.1,46,41,477/- including the interest @ 12% w.e.f. 01.04.2006 on the principal amount of Rs.1,35,58,299/-.

3. The OP on being served with the notice of the complaint filed a written version. It was pleaded that insurance claim has been filed in respect of insurance policy no. 120801/11/04/00580 valid w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005.

4. According to the opposite party, the loss admittedly was caused due to flood which was not covered under the insurance policy because while paying the premium, the complainant had taken discount in respect of premium for extra risk of STFI. It is contended that even in the previous year’s policy, similar discount was taken by the complainant.

5. Both the parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their contention.

6. We have heard the parties and perused the record. On perusal of repudiation letter, it is clear that opposite party has repudiated the insurance claim on the plea that so far as loss due to flood is concerned, it was not covered under the insurance policy. In this regard learned counsel for the OP has drawn our attention to insurance policies issued in favour of the complainant for the year 2004 and 2005 and submitted that from perusal of these two insurance policies which were valid w.e.f. 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2004 and 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005, it would be seen that the complainant had taken STFI exclusion discount while paying the premium for the insurance policy. Thus, it can be safely inferred that insurance cover was not extended to any loss due to flood and as such repudiation of the insurance claim is justified.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the contrary has taken us through history of the case which starts from filing of the proposal form in the year 2000 and contended that complainant since beginning has been taking the insurance policy for the loss caused due to flood and at no occasion, the complainant ever asked for the change in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that opposite party for the reasons best known to them on its own accord without any instruction from the complainant had excluded the loss due to STFI from the insurance policies without any instructions in this regard and as such, it cannot take advantage of the same.

8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the evidence. The complainant has filed on record proposal form submitted in the year 2000 vide which the firs