The Hindu Business Line : An exclusive storm

A STORMY case that I'd like to walk you through this week is Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Samir Chandra Chaudhary, which the Supreme Court decided on July 14. Samir owned an Ambassador car, registered as a taxi. On April 28, 1992, the branch of a eucalyptus tree fell on the parked car, resulting in extensive damage. Samir reported the incident to his insurer, UI, and lodged a claim for repairs and loss of hiring charges.

UI repudiated the claims saying that it wasn't covered by the policy, so Samir approached the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum. Meanwhile, he retracted his storm theory and also got hold of a `letter from the meteorological authority' that there was no storm.

At the Forum, the President felt that Samir's new story and the Met letter weren't to be relied upon, but his colleagues on the Forum held that the `letter' clearly established that there was no storm and, therefore, the damage was covered by the terms of the insurance policy. UI was accordingly asked to pay Rs 80,000 for repairs and Rs 1,62,000 for loss of hiring charges, plus interest at 18 per cent p.a. till payment was made.

Aggrieved by the decision, UI approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which relied on the `letter' and opined that the majority judgment of the Forum suffered from no infirmity. However, based on the surveyor's report, compensation was fixed at Rs 50,753, ignoring any amount for the loss of hiring, and reducing the interest rate to 12 per cent. The insurance company then went to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ruled that damage to the vehicle on account of the falling of the eucalyptus tree was covered under the policy.

Disappointed, UI marched to the apex court.After repudiation of the claim, Samir couldn't take a new plea that there was no storm, said UI.

The Met's letter-certificate wasn't exhibited, nor was any witness examined to prove its authenticity, said UI. But Samir's counsel averred that Samir's brother didn't know the facts; he'd heard about the storm from a khalasi, and so the claim petition was on the basis of wrong information, but the letter of the Met Department was `clinching evidence', he said. Justices Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia studied the terms of the insurance policy and noted that it offered to indemnify the insured against loss or damage from fire, explosion, burglary, riot earthquake, malicious act, terrorism, rock slide/landslide and so on; but clause (e) on `flood, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, storm, inundation, cyclone, hailstorm, frost' was excluded `in consideration of an appropriate discount'.

On the purported letter, the court said that it wasn't clear as to who was the person who had given the certificate, and on what authority he'd issued such a certificate. "Contemporaneous documents clearly show that the complainant right from the beginning had accepted the position that the branch had got knocked off the tree because of storm," pointed out the court. To show the contrary, material offered has to be of clinching nature so as to outweigh the admission, ruled the court, directing the National Commission to hear the matter afresh.

"Human misery must somewhere have a stop; there is no wind that always blows a storm," said Euripides. In Samir's case, though, the storm continues to blow on.

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

D. Murali

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page