Skip to main content

Coverage Of 'Flood & Inundation' Insurance Includes Damage Caused By Heavy Rains And Not Just Overflowing Of River

In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v M/s J K Cement Works Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 7402/2009, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the insurer against the order of the NCDRC allowing the claim of the respondent.

The respondent had purchased a Standard Fire and Peril Insurance Coverage from the appellant, which covered, among other things, damages due to "flood and inundation". Due to heavy rains, the coal stocked by the respondent got washed away. The appellant repudiated the claim in respect of that damage by saying that the damage due to heavy rains was not covered under 'flood and inundation'.

The insurer argued that ''flood' refers to overflowing of water bodies such as rivers, ponds, lakes etc. With respect to the term 'inundation', the company argued that the same refers to 'accumulation of water' and could thus not be applied to the instant case as the coal had merely been washed off due to heavy rains.

Rejecting the contention of the insurer, the Supreme Court held that as per Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, floods can be broadly divided into the following categories: coastal floods, fluvial floods (river floods), and pluvial floods (surface floods). Pluvial or surface floods refers to the accumulation of water in an area because of excessive rainfall. These floods occur independently of an overflowing water bodies. "Inundation" was said to be referring to both the act of overflow of water as well as the result of such overflow. Further, the terms 'flood' and 'inundation' are often used synonymously to refer to the act of overflowing of water over land that is generally dry and pluvial floods occur independently of a water body, therefore floods are not restricted to overflow of water bodies.

The Court also noted that there was no water body near the factory and decided that here there was no risk of water from a water body overflowing onto the dry land where the coal yard was located, it could not have been the intention of the parties entering into the contract to give a restrictive meaning to the term 'flood'. Such a narrow interpretation would lead to the conclusion that the insertion of the term 'flood' was superfluous, which could not have been the case.




Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more