AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appellant, the Insurance Company, is the second opposite party in C.D. No. 480 of 1990 on the file of the District Forum, Rajahmundry. THE respondent No. 1 in this appeal who is running a rice mill, insured on 21.4.1990 the building, machinery and stocks for Rs. 9,55,000/- under an Insurance policy with the appellant valid from 21.4.1990 to 20.4.1991 covering risks arising out of fire, lightening explosion, implosion, impact by any rail road vehicle or animal, air crash and other ariel and or space devices and riot and strikes. On 25,4.1990 the complainant paid extra premium for the risks like storm, tempest, floods etc. An endorsement to the original policy taken on 21.4.90 was made wherein it was mentioned in clauses 9(b)(iv) that the coverage of additional risk under the endorsement for storms and cyclone etc. is to commence 15 days after the receipt of premium.
WHILE so, there was unprecedented cyclone which commenced on 8.5.1990 and there is rain upto 12.5.1990. On 11.5.90 the respondent herein informed the Insurance Company that on account of the unprecedented cyclone the stocks of 200 Qtls. of paddy suffered 90% of damage 120 Qtls. of rice suffered 95% damage and 1200 gunny bags were completely damaged and claimed damages. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued a certificate certifying the above damages were suffered by the respondent No. 1 herein. Subsequently, a Surveyor was also appointed and he reported that the loss is at Rs.25,719.00 and directed deduction of 50% from the same. The Insurance Company on 19.9.1990 informed the first respondent herein that the matter has been referred to the Divisional Office at Kakinada for consideration. Thereafteron29.1.91 a letter was sent to the first respondent stating that the risk covering the storm, tempest, Flood etc. was covered from 26.4.1990 with a waiting period of 15 days and as the Cyclone hit coastal area on 8.5.90 the loss had occurred within the waiting period and therefore no compensation is payable. Contending that the rejection of the claim is arbitrary, the respondent herein filed the complaint claiming Rs. 99,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 11.5r90 and damages of Rs. 5000/- and costs.
In the counter filed, the bank i.e. the second respondent in this appeal supported the claim of the first respondent herein. The Insurance Company contended that the complaint is not maintainable in law; and that the policy was issued covering from 26.4.90 subject to waiting period of 15 days and as the rains have commenced from 8.5.90 and lasted till 11.5.90 the damage was caused before the expiry of 15 days waiting period. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Inspite of the certificate issued by he Mandal Revenue Officer and the report submitted by the Surveyor.
ON the basis of the aforesaid contentions the District Forum framed two points viz.., 1. Whether the second respondent-Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation as the damage have been caused within the waiting period of fifteen days?; and 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation if any, and if so to what extent? On the first point the District Forum held that although the additional coverage was from 25.4.90 since this is merely an endorsement on the policy issued on 21.4.90, the additional risks must also be deemed to have been covered from 21.4.90 and even otherwise since the premium for extra coverage was paid on 25.4.90 and as the damage occurred on 11.5.90 i.e. beyond the waiting period of fifteen days from 25.4.90 the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. On the second point with regard to quantum the District Forum held reimbursement of Rs. 52,200/- being the loss arrived at with interest at 12% p.a. from 1.11.1990.
AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred the above appeal questioning the awarding of compensation by the District Forum while as the complainant preferred claiming the disallowed compensation by the District Forum. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that in the clauses covering additional risks it was clearly mentioned that the cover of Insurance will commence 15 days after the receipt of premium and since the cyclone commenced from 8th, the damage was caused within a waiting period of 15 days. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount. But it is to be seen that although the endorsement with regard to additional coverage is dated 26.4.90, in view of the general terms relating to coverage of storm, cyclone etc. in Clause 9(b) (iv) it was mentioned that the cover will commence 15 days after the day of receipt of premium. In the instant case, the premium was paid on 25.4.90 and that therefore the waiting period of 15 days will commence from that date. Although the storm commenced from 8th and lasted till 12.5.90 the complainant mentioned that he suffered the damage on 11.5.90 and wrote a letter on the same day to the respondent. This was not contradicted in the counter filed by the Insurance Company. Since the storm has lasted from 8th to 11th May, 1990 and as the water continued till 12th there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that the damage was caused on 11.5.1990. If that is so the claim made on 11.5.90 is beyond the waiting period of 15 days as the time has to be counted from and inclusive of the date when premium was paid i.e. on 25.4.90. We are not inclined to accept the contention that in determining the waiting period of 15 days, the time should be counted upto 8.5.90 and not upto 11.5.90 and hence we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the appellant.
SO far as the next question as to damages are concerned the District Forum placed reliance and considered the Surveyor''s report as well as the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It placed reliance on the Mandal Revenue Officer''s report and also took into consideration the report of the Surveyor and came to the conclusion that 174 quintals of paddy has suffered damage and valued the same at Rs. 205/- per quintal and after considering the loss of 90% it came to the conclusion that the loss of paddy is Rs. 3028.50 ps. There is 50 quintals of rice that suffered damage and as the damage is 95% it valued the rice of 50 quintals at Rs. 355/- per quintal and come to the conclusion that Rs. 15,912.50 is the loss on this account. It also gave a further deduction of 10% towards salvage and estimated the total loss at Rs. 48,200/-, Rs. 4000/-was awarded as loss for gunny bags. It accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 50,200/- with interest at 12% p.a. on the said sum from 1.11.90. On a consideration of the Mandal Revenue Officer''s report we are satisfied that the quantum of loss arrived by the District Forum and the rates adopted by it for the assessment of loss of paddy, rice etc. are not unreasonable and arbitrary. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the same.
IN the result the appeals fail and are dismissed without costs. Appeal dismissed.