IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 13.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Review Application Nos.130 and 131 of 2022 Review Application No.130 of 2022

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Officer : 710 300 No.603, Anna Salai, Chennai – 6.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager

2^nd Floor, B- Block “Mac Milan House”

No.21, Pattulos Road, Chennai – 6.

... Petitioners/Appellants /vs/

M/s.Swiss Park Vanijya (P) Ltd Rep. by its General Manager No.167, St.Marry's Road Alwarpet, Chennai – 18. ... Respondent/Respondent

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Divisional Officer : 710 300 No.603, Anna Salai, Chennai – 6.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager

2^nd Floor, B- Block “Mac Milan House”

No.21, Pattulos Road, Chennai – 6.

... Petitioners/Appellants /vs/

M/s. OPG Energy (P) Ltd Rep. by its General Manager No.117, P.S.Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. ... Respondent/Respondent Review Application No.130 of 2022 is filed to review the judgment dated 03.01.2022 made in O.S.A.No.283 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

Review Application No.131 of 2022 is filed to review the judgment dated 03.01.2022 made in O.S.A.No.282 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants in both Review Applications : Mr.SP.Chockalingam

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., The present Review Applications are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, having lost the intra-court appeal filed by it. By the judgment under review dated 03.01.2022, we had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Learned single Judge decreeing the suit against the appellant.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff in the suits got his Solar Unit insured against any loss caused due to Storm etc. by the appellant Company. There was loss of solar panels on account of storm and when the respondents/plaintiffs made a claim, the same was repudiated by the appellant Insurance Company. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the policy covers only loss due to Storm. As per the Beaufort Scale, if only there is wind of 80Km per hour and above, it can be termed as 'Storm', but in the instant case, the speed of the wind was only 32 Km per hour.

3. The learned Judge did not accept the said contention as there was no specification in the Insurance Policy that the term ‘storm’ will be construed only as per ‘Beaufort Scale’. On appeal, we also reasoned that the term ‘storm’ has to be taken as per the ordinary dictionary meaning and accordingly, confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Judge.

4. Now, the present Reviews are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company through a different counsel than the one who argued the Original Side Appeals. According to the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners, the Judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record for the following :

(i) Only Beaufort Scale is followed universally and therefore, the wind speed of 32kmph should not be considered as storm;

(ii) If there had been a storm, the entire field of solar panel including the tables would have been uprooted and damaged and therefore, the damage is not due to storm, but due to transit only;

(iii) There is a mismatch between the claim and the actual loss suffered and only about 2.5% of the panels which were damaged;

(iv) When the surveyor assessed the field, the damaged items were not even there and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the damage;

(v) Even on a subsequent inspection, the respondents/claimants did not even replace the damaged panels and therefore, are not entitled for compensation.

5. As far as the submissions made in Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) are concerned, the submission of the learned counsel is factually erroneous in as much as their own surveyor report, which