The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance policy terms, specifically the meaning of 'inundation' and 'flood,' and how these terms influenced the court's decision.

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President - Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent /complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant firm had insured the stock of foodgrains stocked in the godown at Swastik Ginem Factory, Bhadrakali Road, situated at Hanuman Garh. The respondent obtained a 'standard Fire and Special Peril Policy valid from 17.11.2006 till 16.11.2007 from the petitioner. It was the case of the complainant that on 18th, 19th and 20th November, 2007, a heavy storm and rain came, due to which water entered inside the godown and insured goods were damaged. The matter was reported to the petitioner Insurance Company, who appointed a Surveyor. The petitioner company declared this to be a case of no claim . It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming, in all, Rs. 6,20,178 being the cost of damage to the goods, a compensation of Rs. l lakh and cost of Rs. 5,000. The matter was contested by the petitioner, whose case was, that according to the Surveyor report, the loss was not caused due to the flow of water from the floor of the godown, but had entered from the holes of roof of godown, which is made of iron sheets, hence this loss was caused due to filling in water into godown from the holes of the roof of the godown, hence, the risk is not covered by the terms of the policy. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,89,999, i.e., loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the petitioner, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the maturity of payment along with cost of Rs. 2,100.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the complaint only to the extent that interest was reduced 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. All other reliefs granted by the District Forum were upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon condition VI of the policy, which reads as under:

"VI. Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation

Loss destruction or damage directly caused by storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature."

5. It is his case that since this was a question of leakage of water from roof, hence, it is not covered under any of the perils covered under the policy.

6. In support of this contention, Counsel for the petitioner has produced before us the definition of inundation as obtained from the website.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and material on record, we find that this Commission had occasion to deal with a similar type of case in the case of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Marthi Crystal Salt Co. Ltd., (1986-2002) Consumer 6043 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Ghosh and Anr., (2009) 2 CPJ 311 (NC), wherein this Commission has interpreted the word Direct Cause as appears in the terms of the policy and had recorded as under:

"Learned Counsel for the respondent brought on record the copy of P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon, Law Dictionary . As per this dictionary, the word direct cause as well as Direct and proximate cause has been defined as under:

Direct Cause that which sets in motion train of events which brings about result without intervention of any force operating or working actively from new and independent source; or one without which the injury would not have happened. Norbeck v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 3 Wash. App 582, 476 p 2d, 546, 547. (Black's Law Dictionary)"

(emphasis supplied)

8. This Commission had also occasion to go into this question again in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Imperial Gift