Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25348 of 2018 Petitioner :- United India Insurance Company Ltd Respondent :- Sri Jaypal Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present petition is directed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 19.12.2017 whereby the petitioner- company has been directed to indemnify the losses suffered by the applicant, owner of Bus No. UP 81 BT 5601.
There is no dispute about the fact that the bus was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company and the policy in question was alive on the date of occurrence of the accident.
There is also no dispute about the fact that the bus was parked at the parking place and damage was caused due to over flow of heavily rained water in the parking area. On the claim set up by the bus owner, the surveyor of the Insurance Company had assessed the losses. There are two survey reports wherein there are some contradictions in the opinion of the surveyor. The permanent Lok Adalat, after assessment of the survey report, came to the conclusion that mechanical or electrical break down of the engine did not occur in normal functioning of the engine and it has occurred on account of water logging/over flow of rained water due to heavy rain in the night. The bus was carefully parked in the parking area and the damage caused to the engine was beyond the control of the applicant.
This finding of fact returned by the Permanent Lok Adalat is sought to be challenged with reference to the Clauses of Insurance Policy at page '20' of the paper book. The clause 2 of Insurance Policy, which is placed before this Court, is as under :-
• 2. The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of :-
• (a) consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages nor for damage caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time.
• (b) damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle insured is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement.
• (c) any accident loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
The said clause placed by learned counsel for the petitioner is part of Section 1 of the Insurance Policy which refers to loss or damage to the vehicle insured. It further shows that the Company had agreed to indemnify the insured against the loss or damage to the vehicle for the reasons as follows :-
• (1) by fire explosion self ignition or lightning;
• (ii) by burglary housebreaking or theft;
• (iii) by riot and strike
• (iv) by earquake (fire and shock damage).
• (v) by flood typhoon hurricane storm tempest inundation cyclone hailstorm frost;
• (vi) by accidental external means;
A careful reading of Section 1 read with Clause 2 of the Insurance Policy in question clearly indicates that the company had agreed to indemnify the insured for the losses occurred on account of any natural phenomenon, such as fire, earthquake, flood, riot and strike etc. The Clause 2 of the Insurance Company refers to the reservation of the Company to indemnify in case of the losses occurred in the natural course of circumstances i.e. during plying of vehicle on account of continuous use of vehicle such as depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages or damage caused on account of overloading or strain of the insured vehicle .
In the instant case, the mechanical or electrical break down of the engine did not occur in normal functioning of the engine and it has occurred on account of water logging/over flow of rained water due to heavy rain in the night. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore cannot be sustained.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Pratima