R.SUDHAKAR,J.

Eleven years after tsunami wreaked havoc along the coasts of India and other South-East Asian Countries, the moot question raised for consideration before us is as to whether tsunami is an insurable risk or not.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6063 of 2008, the appellant/ insurance company has filed this appeal.

3.1. Let us get down to brass tacks. The respondent company is engaged in the business of providing barges for transporting materials like Iron Ore, etc. from the port to the ships. They owned four steel barges bearing registration Nos. CGE 50, WAI 185, WAI 206 and WAI 217.

3.2. The respondent entered into an insurance contract with the appellant on 5.11.2004, insuring the four barges against damages, etc. Clause 4 of the contract states that the insurance covers loss or damage to the subject matter caused by perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other navigable waters. It also covers loss caused by other actions such as fire, violent threat and piracy. Clause 5 of the Contract states that the insurance shall not cover loss, damage, liability or expenses caused by earthquake or volcanic eruption.

3.3. On 26th December, 2004, the world stood witness to the wrath of nature as the massive tsunami waves crushed against the shores of South Asia killing lakhs of people and destroying properties worth Crores. The respondent is a victim of such loss caused by tsunami, as the four barges that belonged to them were damaged. Of the four barges belonging to the respondent, two barges, namely, CGE 50 and WAI 185, were found floating on the sea and the respondent towed the barges back to the port incurring a sum of Rs.14,400/-, which amount was compensated by the appellant/insurance company.

3.4. The other two barges, namely, WAI 206 and WAI 217, were totally damaged and the respondent made a claim for Rs.4,97,160/-and Rs.9,16,250/-respectively. While in respect of the barge bearing registration No.WAI 206, the insurance company made good the loss suffered, in respect of barge No. WAI 217, the insurance company, by order dated 13.9.2005, repudiated the claim of the respondent holding that the proximate cause of tsunami is earthquake, which is not covered under the Institute Time Clauses – Port risk.

3.5. Impugning the said order passed by the appellant/ insurance company, the respondent sent a representation on 19.9.2005 to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad. As the said authority did not pass any orders, on 5.2.2006, the respondent sent a further representation to the insurance company seeking settlement of the insurance claim in respect of the Barge bearing registration No. WAI 217. However, the respondent/insurance company, by proceedings dated 27.3.2006, rejected the claim holding that “The cause of loss of 'tsunami' is not covered under ITC Port Risks.”

3.6. Thereafter, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad, by proceedings dated 25.1.2007, reiterated the stand taken by the insurance company and also observed that as regards the three claims which have been paid, the insurer is in the process of recovering the same. However, it is beyond any cavil that till date no steps have been taken for recovery of the amount paid by the insurance company in respect of barge bearing Registration No. WAI 217.

3.7. Calling into question the order dated 27.3.22006 passed by the appellant/insurance company, the respondent filed W.P.No.6063 of 2008 seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated 27.03.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to sanction and disburse the claim amount as preferred in respect of barge bearing Registration No. WAI 217 covered by Insurance Policy No.011500/22/04/ 01/00000044.

3.8. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.8.2011, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 27.3.2006 passed b