1. This complaint is filed by Mr.Shyamsunder Ruia, proprietor of Adventure Sports (I) Ltd.  According to the complainant, agent of the Opponent approached him and advised him to insure his movable immovable property for loss accruing due to unexpected events and risks. Hence the complainant took policy by paying premium of Rs.17,956/-. According to complainant he suffered loss of Rs.47,31,776.42 due to cancellation of sport event due cancellation of license by the police authorities, for which Opponents are liable to pay the complainant said sum as per policy.  However, Opponents illegally repudiated the claim by letter dated 19/03/2009.
2. Complainant proposed to conduct Bungee Jumping Sport during the period April-May, 2000. For this event he was required to take permission from the police. On 5^th May,2000 Commissioner of Police granted him permission and also issued license in his favour which was valid for the period 6^th May to 13^th May which was further extended upto 28^th May,2000 Exibit C & D. As per the special conditions clause contained in the policy, a) the claim will be limited to the amount of cost of production less revenue earning till the date of claim and b) The claim for loss of cost production will be payable only in the event being cancelled due to risks which are beyond the control of the insured (natural calamity and/or Acts of Government body).  
3. Complainant pleaded that the sporting event commenced on 10^th May,2000 and continued smoothly till 16^th May,2000, but on 16^th May, there was incessant rain and wind which compelled him to suspend event as there was risk to the participants.  On 22 May,2000  Police Inspector, Malwani Police Station by letter No.2886/2000 directed the complainant to stop the sporting event and as such, he was compelled to stop the event as there was risk of injury and even resultant death to the participants. Complainant wrote to the Commissioner of police to reconsider the cancellation of license and he also informed the Commissioner of police that he had taken insurance cover against such risks. However, the Commissioner of police did not give permission and hence the sporting event could not be continued after 16^th of May,2000 causing loss to the complainant.
4. The complainant lodged claim under the said policy with the Opponent. On 18^th May,2000 Shri.M.R.Jalani visited and surveyed the sport site and the documents sought by him were given to him. Opponent then wrote a letter dated 28/06/2000 to him requesting to confirm the exact amount of loss suffered. Thereafter, after 8-9 years, the Opponent repudiated his claim by letter dated 19/3/09 on frivolous grounds and without applying judicious mind. He pleaded that surveyor report is binding on the opponent and hence he has filed this complaint claiming amount of Rs.31,48,526/- as per recommendation by the surveyor. He also claimed Rs.50000/- towards compensation and Rs.50000/- towards advocate fee. He filed affidavits and documents in support of his case.
5. The Opponent Insurance Co. filed written version on affidavit and pleaded that after filing of insurance claim by the complainant, they had appointed surveyor M/s Jalan & Co. and thereafter the complainant was asked to confirm amount of loss vide letter dated 28 June,2000. The Insurance Co. after completing scrutiny, repudiated claim lodged by him as it was in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance co. pleaded that the complainant stopped the event on 16^th May on his own. It pleaded that the complainant had mischievously calculated the loss of Rs.47,31,776.42 though in the tabular form of para No.4, he himself has calculated it to Rs.47,47,449/-.  As such, the repudiation was just and proper and prayed complaint should be dismissed.  The Insurance Co. also filed affidavit in support of its defense.  
6. We herd submissions of Adv.Harshad Trivedi for the complainant and Adv.Deepak Sharma proxy for Adv.Dinesh Gupta for the Respondent.
7. We are finding that it is not in dispute that Insurance cover of Rs.48,0000/- has been given to the complainant for the period 10/05/2000 to 9/06/2000. The policy was subject to special conditions clause. As per the special conditions clause contained in the policy,

a)      the claim will be limited to the amount of cost of production less revenue earning till the date of claim and

b)       The claim for loss of cost production will be payable only in the event being cancelled due to risks which are beyond the control of the insured (natural calamity and/or Acts of Government body). 

8. According to the complainant, the sports started on 10.05.2000and continued till 16/05/2000 smoothly. However, there was unexpected rain and storm due to which they were unable to conduct sports event as there was risk to the life of people taking part in the event. The rainfall continued for some days and hence the complainant could not restart the sport event. He informed the opponent of heavy downpour and resultant suspension of that event. According to complainant, on 22/5/2000 Senior Inspector of Malwani Police Station directed him to stop operation of the event and thus he was compelled to stop its operation since it was risky for the life of the participants. The complainant had written letter to the Commissioner of Police on 23 May,2000 and requested him to permit to re start the event, but the permission was not granted and as such, the event which was already suspended on 16^th of May,2000 was required to be cancelled.
9. The Insurance Company was pleased to repudiate the claim on the ground that there were some loose statements and non disclosure of certain things by the insurer. It further claimed that insurance claim can not be entertained for the stoppage of event due to public authorities as it would be against the public policy. However, we are finding that Senior Inspector of Malwani Police Station had directed the complainant to stop operation of the event and thus he was compelled to stop its operation since it was risky for the life of the participants. In the said letter police had asked to stop the event.  The complainant had even written letter to the Commissioner of Police on 23 May,2000 and requested him to permit to re start the event, but the permission was not granted and as such, the event was required to be cancelled.
10. When we have read the special conditions forming part of the policy No.130600/46/00/00061, The special condition No.2 clearly provides that

      “the claim for loss of cost production will be payable only in the event being cancelled due to risks which are beyond the control of the insured (natural calamity and/or Acts of Government body).

11. So, the event is required to be cancelled because of natural calamity (in the instant case there was heavy downpour and heavy wind which forced the complainant to immediately stop the event w.e.f.16/05/2000)  He was further forced to stop and cancel the event as Senior Inspector of Malwani Police Station had directed the complainant by letter dated 22/05/2000 to stop operation of the event. In our view, the word cancellation has the same connotations as the word stoppage of event has. Stoppage of the event by the Malwani Police Station in terms letter Exibit ‘g’ is tantamount to cancellation of the event by a public body.  So, the direction given by the Police authority will have to be taken as an act of government body. The complainant was required to stop the operation of the event for the reasons beyond his control and stopping of event due to natural calamity by an such act of the government is covered by the special condition No.2 attached to the policy purchased by the complainant.
12. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company M/s Dudhat & Co. Chartered Accountants have ascertained the loss caused to the complainant to `31,48,526/- as against the claim of the complainant of `47,47,449/-.The Insurance Company sent Exibit ‘N’ letter and asked the complainant to confirm the amount of loss. In our view, when the loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, there was no further need to send letter to the complainant and ask him to confirm the amount of loss suffered by him. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Insurance Company had wrongfully repudiated the claim vide repudiation letter dated 19/03/2009 when its own surveyor had assessed the loss to `31,48,526/-.
13. We are strongly of the view that the Insurance Company is guilty of deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant when the claim of the complainant was fully covered by the Insurance Policy sold by the Opponent Insurance Company, since the event was cancelled at the instance of the public body (Senior Inspector of Malwani Police Station). In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the complaint. Hence the following order…

                                                     OPERATIVE ORDER

1.                  The Complaint is partly allowed.

2.                  The Opposite Party Insurance company is directed to pay Rs.31,48,526/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the Insurance claim.

3.                  Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

4.                  Copies of the judgment be furnished to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 15/03/2011