Delhi

New Delhi

CC/359/2011

Raj Bala & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

Case No.C.C./359/11              Dated:

In the matter of:

SMT. RAJ BALA, W/O SHRI PADAM SINGH,

R/O H.NO. 743-C/7,

GOVIND PURI, KALKAJI

NEW DELHI-110 054.

                      ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

GULAB BHAWAN, 6, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,

N.DELHI-11001.

 

2. ALSO AT:-THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-II, NON MOTOR CLAIM HUM 10^TH FLOOR, CORE-I, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE,    DELHI-11001

 

.... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member  :  RITU GARODIA

The complainant has filed a complaint against OP for deficiency in service on part of the OP in repudiating the claim under Fire/Natural Calamity policy.  The brief facts are that complainant has taken Policy bearing No.323300/11/09/11/00001002 for a period from 4.10.09 to 4.11.2010.  Due to heavy rain between July to Sept., 2010 the structure of the premises was damaged. The complainant filed a claim for renovation and reconstruction of the said property for Rs.5,42,250/- with OP on 25.9.10. OP Company appointed a surveyor to investigate the premises.  OP thereafter repudiated the claim on the ground that the damage was not caused by inundation and flood but was a result of water collection on roof during rainy season, attributable to improper drainage system & poor construction.  Thus the cause of loss is not falling under the fire policy.

The OP in its reply reiterated the repudiation letter and also annexed the details of Fire and Special Parties Policy.  The Clause VI of the policy states ”Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado  flood and Inundation

Loss, destruction or damage directly caused by Storm, Cyclone Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado.  Flood or Inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake.  Volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature.“       The OP has also stated that building also been declared unsafe by civil engineer and has been consequently abandoned.

        We have heard both the parties and examined the documents placed on record.  Heavy rainfall during rainy season is common occurrence.  One can be insured against natural calamities and not against natural seasonal cycle of nature.  The surveyor has pointed out that during rainy season water collected on roof was attritutable to improper   drainage due to which rain water seeped in the wall causing the damage to the structure. The clauses of policy give details of the natural perils and does not cover damage causes due to rain water collection on roof.

                We, therefore, find no deficiency in service in the facts and circumstance of the complaint.  The case is hereby dismissed.

The file is to be sent to record Room.

Copy of the order is sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 20.02.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

President

 

(S.R.CHAUDHARY)          (RITU  GARODIA)

Member                                   Member