IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Terms and Conditions – The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies require the Insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property under insurance.
(2) Policy – Examination of the Business Shield Policy in question reveals that the damage to building due to snowfall is not under the named perils of the Policy.
(3) Snowfall – In the present case, the Complainants, who are the owner of the insured premises ought to have been aware of the regular feature of snowfall in the area and its impact on the tin roof of the premises.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 10 of 2014, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainants (Respondents No.1 & herein) was partly allowed.

2. As per the Report of the Registry, there is 27 days of delay in filing of the Appeal and was condoned vide order dated 20.11.2018.

3. For Convenience, the parties in the present Appeal are referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the learned State Commission. “Food Court The Company Garden Society & Anr.” is referred as the Respondents No.1&2/Complainants and “Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.” is referred to as the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 or Insurer in this matter and “Allahabad Bank” is referred to as the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party N0.2.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case as per the Complainants are that the Complainant No. 1 is a Society and Complainant No. 2 Secretary of the Complainant No. 1-Society. The Complainant No. 1 constructed a building at Company Garden, Mussoorie at its own cost of over Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Complainant No. 1 had taken a loan from Allahabad Bank, Mussoorie Branch, Dehradun for meeting part of the expenditure incurred in erection of the building. The OP-2/ Allahabad Bank sanctioned the loan vide letter dated 12.02.2010. As per the terms of sanction, it was mandatory that the entire fixed and moveable assets of the society shall be comprehensively insured for full value under a “comprehensive risk insurance policy” through bank’s specified person in joint names with the bank at the borrower’s cost. After the completion of the building, the OP-2 itself got the said building insured from the OP-1, who is a business associate of the PO-2. The OP-1 had insured the said premises of the Complainant for Rs.l,48,50,000/-and the premium was realized from the account of Complainant. The Complainant was informed that the policy was in accordance with the terms specified in the sanction letter of the loan. The first policy, namely, Business Shield Policy, was undertaken by OP-1 for the first time from 14.06.2011 to 13.06.2012. Subsequently, the policy was got renewed by OP-2 for and on behalf of the Complainant and the entire premium was debited to the account of the Complainant and the policy was renewed till 13.06.2014. Unfortunately, there was a heavy rainfall in Mussoorie on 18.01.2014 followed by snowstorm, which resulted in heavy snow fall. As a result of this natural calamity (Act of God) the building of the society was damaged and the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.17,04,000/-. A claim was accordingly preferred. The intimation of loss was immediately given to both OP-1 & 2 over phone. The OP-1 appointed a surveyor who inspected the premises on or around 27.01.2014. While the Complainants were assured that the claim would be paid by the OP-1, however, they were shocked to receive a letter dated 02.04.2014 from OP-1, repudiating the claim on the ground that the Surveyor observed that due to continuous snowfall, snow accumulated on the tin-shade and weight of the accumulated snow exceeded the load bearing capacity and due to this the roof collapsed. As per the Fire And Allied Perils-Buildings & Contents, snowfall is not a named peril/event and hence, the cause of loss is not covered under the Policy. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following reliefs:—

(a) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay jointly and severally, compensation to the tune of Rs.23,04,430/- to the Complainants for the loss suffered by the Complainants.

(b) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay interest calculated @ 18% per annum to the Complainant on the amount awarded by this Hon’ble Commission.

(c) Full Cost