9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Holder Insurance Policy No. 2219042615P115431073 for Rs. 1.50 crores which was valid for the period from 13.03.2016 to 12.03.2017. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that due to a heavy downpour in New Delhi from 25.08.2016 to 31.08.2016, the Premises were severely flooded. During this period, the Appellant was out of Delhi from 24.08.2016 to 29.08.2016. Upon his return, he found that the basement of the Premises was inundated with water, resulting in extensive damage to the furniture, fittings, almirahs, books, and other belongings stored there. In an effort to prevent further deterioration, the Appellant installed a booster pump on 30.08.2016 to drain out the water from the basement. Despite this measure, the accumulated floodwater could not be completely drained out. Thereafter, the Surveyor, Mr. Akash Chopra, visited the Premises on 03.09.3016 and inspected the basement. 4. On 04.09.2016, the Appellant contacted Ms. Indu Singh by phone to inquire about the outcome of the survey conducted by Mr. Akash Chopra. Ms. Singh informed him that the report prepared by Mr. Chopra was not satisfactory and, therefore, she would assign another Surveyor to revisit the premises and reass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d seepage. Reliance was placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr. reported in II (2009) CPJ 311 (NC). 12. Moreover, it was submitted that NCDRC ought to have relied on the Meteorological Department Report stating that Delhi had rainfall during the period of 25.08.2016 to 31.08.2016. It was further submitted that it is a common practice in Delhi that on a particular day certain portions of Delhi received scanty rainfall whereas other pockets received heavy rainfall. In the case of the Appellant, the Ishwar Nagar area received heavy rainfall and as such there was flooding in the area. 13. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that "seepage" refers to the slow and gradual flow of liquid from a source. In the present case, the basement had accumulated over 3 feet of water within a span of just three days while the Appellant was away from Delhi. The Appellant respectfully contended that such rapid and substantial flooding cannot be classified as "seepage" as seepage does not result in the sudden inundation of a basement with three feet of water. 14. It was further submitted that in case there was seepage water in the basement, the same ought to have attracted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the basement of the building. In the respectful submission the NCDRC had wrongly relied on the said Report to reject the legitimate claim of the Appellant. 18. Further, it was submitted that Surveyors appointed by the Respondent had categorically stated in their reports that there was heavy rainfall on 25.08.2016. It was submitted that the basement of the Appellant was perfectly dry when he left on 24.08.2016 but after his return on 29.08.2016 he found that the basement was flooded with water with water marks on the walls up to the window height. 19. It was submitted that it is not in dispute that the basement was flooded with water. The Respondent has denied the claim of the Appellant on the ground of seepage and appointed multiple surveyors, however, not once the Respondent has or their surveyors tried to trace the source of the water, nor appointed anybody to trace the source of water. The Respondent is completely silent about the source of water in the basement. The same is unfair practice on the part of the Respondent. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS 20. Learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently argued that even if "seepage" encompasses both inundation and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtly repudiated the claim." It was further submitted that while the insurance policy encompassed coverage for risks associated with flood and inundation, among other perils, the Meteorological Report did not provide substantial evidence to support the occurrence of significant rainfall in the specific area leading to flooding. It is pertinent to mention that the primary cause of the loss was attributed to seepage. This attribution is firmly supported by the certificates issued by both the structural engineers. Both certificates unequivocally confirm the existence of a continuous ingress of seepage water into the foundation and basement, which consequently resulted in the corrosion of the reinforcement steel. This corrosion, in turn, compromised the building's structural integrity, particularly in its capacity to withstand loads, especially lateral ones. It is imperative to stress that the insurance policy did not explicitly include seepage of water among the insured perils. Consequently, the insurance company's decision to repudiate the claim was a justifiable response, consistent with the policy's terms and conditions and the distinct circumstances surrounding the loss. 22. Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of heavy rainfall causing significant damage in The Times of India editions dated 26.08.2016 and 27.08.2016. The absence of any news reports documenting rainfall-related damage during the relevant period supports the conclusions drawn in the reports submitted by the insurance company. 26. Furthermore, in this case, the certificate issued by M/s International Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. played a pivotal role in assessing the cause of the loss. The certificate indicated that continuous seepage of water into the foundation and basement was the primary cause of the damage, rendering the building structurally unsound. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 27. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record. The point at issue for consideration is, whether, the cause of loss to the premises is due to the seepage water or the heavy rains in Delhi. In considering the arguments advanced by the Appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by NCDRC is liable to be set aside. We shall now examine the various certificates issued by different authorities in relation to the said premises. (a) Observations m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f August. As per the observations recorded, the ingress of water into the basement was a direct result of this excessive rainfall. Thus, the certificate establishes that the cause of damage was not due to any structural failure or seepage water but rather a consequence of the intense rainfall experienced during that period. 28. Upon a careful examination of the material on record, including the first survey report and certificates submitted by various technical experts, it is evident that the cause of damage to the insured premises was the flooding of water into the basement due to heavy rainfall in Delhi during the relevant period. The First Survey Report dated 06.09.2016 clearly attributes the damage to rainwater entering through the flooring following the downpour on 25.08.2016. Subsequently, the same cause is further corroborated by the certificates issued by M/s International Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chordia Engineering Consultancy Services, both of which confirm that the flooding, and not seepage or structural failure, was the proximate cause of loss. Conversely, the certificate issued by Unique Consulting Engineers pertains solely to seepage affecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
