The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the terms 'flood and inundation' in the insurance policy and their application to the specific circumstances of the case.

ORDER

Ramesh Kr. Merathia, President Member. - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1. Heard the parties on the prayer of the appellant for condoning the delay of about four months in filing this appeal.

2. According to the appellant, its panel counsel misplaced the file due to which no prompt intimation could be sent to the appellant and hence it was not knowing about the dismissal of the complaint case.

3. Such ground is absolutely vague and general. The appellant should have been vigilant, in knowing about the disposal of the complaint case but it has tried to throw the entire blame on its panel counsel that he misplaced the file, as, if the Insurance Company had no responsibility at all.

4. Thus, there is no satisfactory explanation for the long delay of about four months.

However, we are condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

5. Heard the parties at length on merits.

6. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Insurance Company submitted that the alleged loss occurred due to the negligence of the respondent/complainant itself and therefore the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground that the cause of loss was outside the scope of the policy. He referred the materials on the record while assailing the impugned judgement.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant supported the impugned judgement and submitted that the complainant was not responsible for the loss and that the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company. He also submitted that before giving the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company did not raise any issue regarding the floor of the Godwon, but for repudiating the claim, its Surveyor and the Insurance Company have raised untenable issues. He lastly referred to certain judgements.

8. According to the complainant, when the Godown was opened on 1.9.2006, it was found that the stocks kept therein was damaged due to over flowing/entering of drain water into the campus and then inside the Godown due to rains . The Insurance Company was immediately informed and it appointed surveyor named Ajit Kumar Sahu, who conducted the survey from 5.9.2006 to 9.9.2006. The complainant then lodged the claim on 10.10.2006 but it was wrongly repudiated.

9. According to the Insurance Company as per the Surveyors report dated 20.3.2007, the loss was not due to rain water entering into the Godown but was due to seepage of water due to bad floor condition of the Godown. On 1.9.2006 the rainfall was very meagre due to which rain water could not enter into the Godown.

10. The learned District Forum after considering the respective cases of the parties, the materials on record, and the judgements relied by them, interalia held that it was the cumulative effect of the rainfall during the period in question which led to overflow of water from the drain which entered into the Godown of the complainant; and that the loss suffered due to this, was covered under the policy; and that the seepage was not a cause of damage of goods.

11. The learned Lower Forum, on the basis of the report of the Surveyor, directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 3, 31,534/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of repudiation of the Insurance claim i.e. 4.3.2003 till realization, besides litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- , within 60 days of the order, failing which the Insurance Company was also made liable to pay penal interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount from the date of the order.

12. It appears from the joint inspection note that the Godown in question was last opened on 25.8.2006 by the Complainant and then when it was opened on 1.9.2006, the stocks kept therein were found damaged. In the claim form, the complainant mentioned the reason for loss as - rain water entered in Godown.

The Surveyor Mr. Ajit Kumar Sahu appointed by the Insurance Company in his report dated 20.3.2007, interealia observed as follows. The wal