In insurance contracts, where a loss is caused by two proximate or concurrent events, one being an insured peril and the other an expressly excluded peril such as a riot, the exclusion clause prevails, thereby absolving the insurer of liability.

ORDER

JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. The petitioner, since deceased, and now represented through the legal representatives had filed CC No. 43 of 2006 before the DCDRC, Himmat Nagar, District Sabarkantha, Gujarat questioning the correctness of the repudiation by the respondent Insurance Company of his claim vide letter dated 15.06.2004 in respect of the claim for losses suffered by him when the stock of his Tiptop showroom and tailoring was looted during riots on 13.10.2002. The shop was insured for burglary. A copy of the burglary and housebreaking policy has been filed by the complainant as directed by this Commission on 23.09.2015. The complaint was partly allowed by the DCDRC awarding a sum of Rs. 3,37,367/- with 6% interest with effect from 17.03.2006. Rs. 2,000/- for agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

2. The Insurance Company filed an appeal F.A. no. 1021/2009 praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission and the complainant also filed an appeal F.A. no. 1037/2009 praying for enhancement.

3. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the repudiation was valid as there was no risk of riot covered under the policy. It was also held that the complainant had given a consent for an additional premium for riots, but since there was no evidence of any payment of additional premium, therefore, the policy was only for burglary and housebreaking where such risks during riots were not indemnifiable as per the exclusion clause.

4. While recording findings, the State Commission held that any loss during riots under the burglary policy would stand excluded. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Commission. As a consequence thereof, the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement was also dismissed vide orders dated 06.02.2015.

5. The complainant has now come up in this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assailing the appellate orders referred to hereinabove.

6. The revision petition was admitted on 04.01.2016 and the delay in the filing of the revision petition was condoned on 06.03.2018. On 10.10.2018, it was informed that the original petitioner had passed away and therefore I.A. No. 18785/2018 was moved for substitution of the legal heirs that was allowed.

7. Parties had exchanged their submissions whereafter written arguments were also filed. The written arguments on behalf of the petitioner were filed on 05.08.2020 vide Diary No. 13041 and the written arguments on behalf of the respondent was filed on 11.08.2020 vide Diary No. 13340 that are on record.

8. The first round of arguments of final hearing were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that stands recorded in the order dated 02.08.2024 and is extracted hereinunder:

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The Petitioner had taken a Fire and Burglary Policy and during the duration of the said policy, the shop of the complainant was looted amongst widespread riots as a result whereof, the loss was sought to be indemnified by a claim lodged by the complainant before the Insurance Company. The claim was denied on the ground that complainant's loss was on account of a risk, the peril whereof was not covered under the policy namely riots and secondly the quantum of claim as set up by the complainant was not supported by appropriate documents.

A