1. Would an insurance cover under the head fire policy cover a loss caused on account of militant related violence when in the risks which are supposed to be covered. It is mentioned as riot, strike and malicious damage as per riot, strike and malicious damage clause printed hereof. According to the respondent complainant, when a fire policy is obtained containing the aforementioned clause and when loss of house-hold goods takes place on account of militant related violence, then notwithstanding the fact that loss is not, caused on account of fire, even, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate. Such is the view expressed by the State Commission also.

The respondent complainant had insured his house-hold goods to the tune of Rs. 45.000. These were lying in a house situated at Channapora, Srinagar. The insurance cover was valid for a period w.e.f. 2nd March 91 to 1st March 92. As per the complainant, on account of militancy in the valley, he had to migrate to Jammu. During his absence on 15th Sept. 91, the house of the complainant was ransacked by the militants. The goods of the value of Rs. 45000/- were removed. A report was lodged with the Police Station. A case under section 380 and 457 of the Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Terrorist Act was registered. It was pleaded that, no doubt, a fire policy was issued and as it covered malicious damage also, therefore, the Insurance Company was bound to compensate. This view was approved by the State Commission. The Commission directed payment of Rs. 45000/- Interest at the rate of 18% was allowed. A sum of Rs. 10.000/- has been allowed as compensation for loss and injury. It is this view which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that when a fire policy is issued, then compensation is to be allowed only if the resultant damage occurs on account of fire. Clause (4) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent complainant i.e. 3 damage caused by riots, strike and malicious damages can be resorted to when these acts lead to a fire and not a every consequence.

With a view to appreciate the contention put across by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the preamble of the policy and the risks covered. This is reproduced below:

Fire Policy A

In consideration of the Insured named in the Schedule hereto having paid to the................ Insurance Company Limited (thereafter called the Company) the premium mentioned in the said Schedule. THE COMPANY agrees, (subject to the conditions and Exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the property insured described in the said Scheduled or any part of such Property, - be destroyed or damaged by the following :

1.Fire:

2. Lighting

3. Explosion/Implosion but excluding loss of or damage to other than Domestic Boilders, economisers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which steam is generated or their contents resulting from their own explosion/Implosion.

4. Riot, strike and malicious damage as per riot, strike and malicious damage Clause printed hereof...

Exclusion:

This Insurance Does not cover:

1 Loss by theft during or after the occurrence of any insured peril except as provided for in the Riot. Strike and Malicious Damage Clause.

2. Loss or damage to property occasioned by its own undergoing any heating or drying process:

After having heard learned clearned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that a Fire Policy would cover a risk where damage is caused by way of fire. The fire may be caused by lightening, by explosing or implosion. It may be a result of riot, strike or on account of any malicious act. The end result of these four factors noticed above under the head Risks covered should ultimately lead to a fire. Even if the exclusion clause is ignored, even the, this would be the resultant fact. In the present case, the loss was caused on account of theft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document