1.       This appeal is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 27.08.2015 in CC/69/2012.

2.       Case of the Complainant/Appellant is that it is a company engaged in floriculture business and took a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from 2006-07 onwards. The Insurance policy was being renewed since then on the same terms & conditions, except with a slight modification in 2010. The latest policy under consideration was for the period 14.04.2010 to 13.04.2011. Premium of Rs.14,365/- was paid for a total sum of Rs.74 lakh. In April, 2011, just before the expiry of the insurance policy, there was a storm and tempest and damage to green houses of the Complainant. The Insurance Company was immediately informed and claim lodged. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company. On the basis of report of the Surveyor, the claim was repudiated on the ground that storm and tempest were not covered under the policy. Hence, the Complaint case was filed before the State Commission.

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Respondent/Opposite Party. It was admitted that the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy was issued to the Complainant for the year 2010-11 and that it did contain specific warranty for polyhouse/greenhouse. However, there was a modification clause which excluded storm, cyclone, tempest or other convulsions of nature. The policy document was never contested by the Appellant/Complainant. The Surveyor in his report dated 06.05.2011 observed that damage due to storm and tempest was excluded from the policy and, therefore the claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 20.05.2011. The exclusions were made at the instance of the Appellant/Complainant for the policy period 2009-10 and polyhouse endorsement was made in the policy covering 2010-2011. The repudiation was, therefore, well within the terms & conditions of the policy and as such the Complaint be dismissed.

4.       After hearing both the parties and going through the policy documents and other material on record, the State Commission was convinced that the policy did not cover the risk by storm by which the loss occurred and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Insurance Company. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed on contest without cost.

5.       Against the order of the State Commission, present Appeal has been filed.

6.       Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties as well as carefully perused the record. It is an admitted case that the Complainant had been taking Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for indemnification of loss of their business since 2006-07, with more or less the same terms & conditions. However, it is seen that the policy did have a modification clause by which cover was only for loss, destruction or damage directly caused by flood or inundation and excluded storm, cyclone, tempest or other convulsions of nature. The policy document was given to the Complainant and there is no evidence on record that the same was ever disputed or challenged. A Surveyor was duly appointed by the Respondent, who in his report dated on 06.05.2011, quoted the clause regarding polyhouse/greenhouse warranties that: “Warranted that policy coverage under section VI stands modified to cover only loss, destruction or damage directly caused by flood or inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake, volcanic eruption, storm, cyclone, and tempest or otherwise convulsions of nature.”

7.       In view of the above, claim was repudiated by the Respondent, vide letter dated 20.05.2011. The exclusion clause as mentioned above was made at the instance of the Appellant/Insured. The Insurance Company had acted strictly in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policy while repudiating the claim. The Respondent/Insurance Company had intimated the Appellants about the deletion of the cover from storm, tempest etc. in their renewal intimation letter dated 27.02.2009. Again vide renewal intimation dated 02.03.2010, the deletion of cover from storm and tempest etc. was intimated for the year 2010-11.    For the aforesaid reasons, deficiency on the part of the Respondent/Insurance Company has not been proved and as the policy did not cover the risk of storm by which the loss had occurred, the Appellant/Complainant had no claim for the same. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.