A wind speed of 80 km/hr can be reasonably interpreted as a storm under insurance policy definitions, allowing claims for damages related to such events.

ORDER

A.P. SAHI, J. (PRESIDENT)

This complaint was heard on 16.10.2023 and again on 26.10.2023 when inal arguments proceeded and the judgment was reserved on 3.11.2023 when the Ld. Counsel for the parties finally concluded their arguments supported by their Written Submissions and the Judgments relied upon by them. However, in order to reduce the narration of facts in this judgment, the same which came to be recorded on two previous occasions are extracted hereinunder. The Order dated 16.10.2023 records the initial submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties which are as follows –

“Heard learned Counsel for the Complainant and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

The dispute relates to an Insurance claim arising out of an incident on 11.06.2008 stated to have occurred between 02.45 p.m. to 03.35 p.m. It is stated that a temporary structure covered with tarpaulin was blown off on account of certain high wind speeds that fell on the dome of the insured structure causing damage which has given rise to the claim.

The question which arises for consideration after having heard the learned Counsel, can be clearly located to the repudiation by the Insurance Company which proceeds on the ground that the speed of the wind which was approximately 80 kilometers an hour did not qualify as a storm keeping in view the beaufort scale which defines the speed of a storm between 88 kms. to 100 kms. an hour. Thus the damage was not due to any storm as such not a covered risk under the policy. This repudiation dated 18.11.2010 gave rise to this Complaint which was instituted in 2011.

The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Complainant is to the effect that this claim is supported by a weather report issued by the Observatory at Santa Cruz, Mumbai that was tendered after an application was moved for the said purpose. The weather report indicates the status of a thunderstorm on 11.06.2008 having occurred between the timings of the incident as is sought to be canvassed in the present Complaint. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the said weather report which is an official weather report of the Indian Meteorological Department, Government of India cannot be overlooked and the same confirms the occurrence of a storm, the direct impact whereof resulted in the blowing off the tarpaulin structure that fell down and damaged the dome which risk stands covered under the policy.

For this reliance has been placed on certain definitions of the word ‘storm’, including the literature on cyclonic storm issued by the Indian Meteorological Department and also the literature available from the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Learned Counsel has also invited the attention of the Bench to the terminologies described by the Indian Meteorological Department to urge that the word “thunderstorm” has been defined in a manner which has a wind speed of the velocity as is covered under the definitions in the aforesaid Meteorological literature.

Learned Counsel