Insurance coverage guarantee is an essential part of an insurance policy. One relies on the guarantee of the insurance company and the company should not try to evade it. This was held in the judgment passed by a two-bench judge comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge, in the matter Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited V. G. M. Motors & Anr. (FAO (D) No. 02/2019), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed for an against the award dated 7th of December, 2018 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar in the complaint filed by the Respondent.
Respondent was running an Automobile Service Center at Beerwah, Budgam and that the stocks in trade were insured with the appellant Insurance Company on 17th of November, 2017 with the validity thereof being from 17th of June, 2011 to 16th of June, 2012 for insured sum of Rs.5.00 lacs. On the intervening night of 4th/ 5th of March, 2012, when the policy was in force, there was a heavy and incessant rainfall which caused inundation to the walls of the building housing the workshop of the complainant/ Respondent No.1, as a result thereof, the rare wall and one side wall of the building collapsed and fell down on the stocks in trade. Thereafter, intimation was, accordingly, given to the Police Station, Beerwah as also to the appellant Insurance Company who deputed their Surveyor. As per the complainant/ Respondent No.1 herein, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3.00 lac to the stocks in trade and Rs.2.96 lac to the building which was not insured.
The Commission, in terms of award dated 7th of December, 2018, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs in favour of the complainant/ Respondent No.1, besides holding the complainant/ Respondent No.1 entitled to litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- as well.
After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble Srinagar High Court dismissed the petition and held that The main and primary contention raised in this appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned award passed by the Commission has reference to the fact that the loss suffered by the complainant/ Respondent was due to subsiding of the land caused due to heavy and incessant rainfall which, as per the appellant Insurance Company, is not covered under the insurance policy governing the relationship of the parties. The contention so raised, we are afraid, has no substance as perusal of the condition of the insurance policy placed on record by the appellant Insurance Company makes it abundantly clear that the insurance is extended to cover the loss or damage (including loss or damage by fire) to any of the property insured by the policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of earthquake including flood or overflow of the sea, lakes, reservoirs and rivers and/ or landslides/ rockslides.
