A storm can include significant rainfall and strong winds causing damage, thus qualifying under insurance coverage despite opposing interpretations.

ORDER

JUSTICE A.P. SAHL PRESIDENT

1. The complainant is a cooperative sugar factory that had insured its plant, .1 building and stocks of sugar under Standard Fire and Perils Policies. The policies in question were valid on the date of the incident, that is on 08.06.2007, when it is alleged that a heavy downpour of rain accompanied by storm severely damaged the godown no. 2 as also the stocks stored therein. The risk stood covered within the policy for the duration of 14.04.2007 to 13.04.2008. The policy nos. 141 and 144 issued by the New India Assurance •!

Company Limited.

•1

2. The main bone of contention between the parties arises out of the repudiation r i of the entire claim by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 20.06.2010. It is this deficiency that has been made the basis of this complaint. To appreciate NC/CC/26/2011 Page 11 •i ' ■

the contention it would be apt to reproduce the repudiation letter dated

20.06.2010, which is extracted herein under:

"151300/FIRE CLM/101901 DATE: 20.06.2010 REGISTER A.D.

TO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. VETH AL SAI SAH.SAKHAR KARAKHANA, AT: MURUM, POST:RAJEEVGANDHINAGAR, TQ: OMERGA, DIST: OSMANABAD RE: Claim due to storm on 08.06.2007, Under Fire Policy No.

151300/11/07/11/00000141 and 151300/11/07/11/00000144 Dear Sir This has reference to the claim lodged by you under the above policy for loss caused due to alleged storm. Upon perusal of the relevant documents, we have observed as follows.

1) This claim has been reported by you in respect of loss caused to sugar bags that were subject to heavy rainfall owing to collapse of the roof structure of godown 2A+2B. The structure is 75°/o complete and 25°/o open to sky and the support of the roof structure having weight of 65 to 70 tons are not built well and not sturdy enough to withstand the vagaries of weather:

I

2) It is also indicated that the cause of loss was due to heavy rainfall that caused the loss of sugar and there was no evidence of storm since storm is a violent weather condition with winds at 64-72 knot (11 on the Beaufort scale), which has not the case in the present claim.

NC/CC/26/2011 Page |2 The rain water poured in through the opening in the roof and the winds were blowing after 45 mins of the rainfall which amply indicates that the proximate cause of the loss was heavy rainfall which is not covered under the policy as the policy only covers loss as direct consequence of the insured perils such as earthquake, storm, tempest, hurricane, landslide, explosions, implosions, typhoon etc. Mere rainfall however heavy it may be, is not, covered within the purview of the policy.

3) The insurers cannot be expected to provide indemnity beyond the scope ofcoverage of risk as provided under the policy.

Under the circumstances and in view of what has been stated in the foregoing paras, we regret to inform you that your claim is not eligible for indemnification under the policy and the same stands repudiated. No further correspondence will be entertained by us from you in this regard.

Yours sincerely.

Sd/-

(MR. P. MOHAN RAO)

DIVISIONAL MANAGER'

3. The repudiation apart from the facts mentioned therein has also taken recourse to the coverage clause VI of the policy, which is extracted herein under: " VI Storm Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation Loss, destruction or damage directly caused by storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane tornado, Hood or inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake, Volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature. (Wherever earthquake cover is given as an "add on cover" the words "excluding those resulting from NC/CC/26/2011 Page |3 earthquake volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature" shall 1 stand deleted.)'

4. The loss was repudiated and according to the complainant the reason and the cause of loss was also widely reported in newspapers on 10.06.2007 in two local dailies, namely, "Sanchar" from Solapur and "Vratwedh" reciting that the i loss was to the structure of godown no. 2 and