(J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.)
Food Court the Company Garden Society ______________ Appellant;
v.
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others ______________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5044 of 2024)§, decided on November 18, 2025
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.K. Maheshwari, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insured (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) aggrieved by the judgment of reversal dated 12.01.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal (in short ‘NCDRC’), setting aside the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (for brevity ‘SCDRC’), which had partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to pay a sum of Rs. 11,84,192/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.
3. The complainant (Society) had taken a ‘Business Shield Policy’ (comprehensive risk insurance policy) for its building. The policy was valid on the date of incident, i.e., 18.01.2004. On the said day, there was a heavy snowfall in Mussoorie followed by a snowstorm, resulting in damage to the building of the complainant. On intimation and filing the claim, it was repudiated by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that as per the report of the surveyor, the damage was caused due to accumulation of snow on the tin shade above the load bearing capacity, leading to its collapse. The said damage was not covered under the policy. For ready reference, the letter of repudiation of the claim dated 02.04.2014, is reproduced below as thus-
“We carefully examined the circumstances of loss, the documents submitted related to the claim and the survey report submitted by the surveyor.
It is observed that due to continuous snowfall; snow accumulated on the tin shade and weight of the accumulated snow exceeded the load bearing capacity and due to this the roof collapsed. As per the fire tariff SNOWFALL is not a named peril/event and hence the cause of loss is not covered under the policy.”
4. Consequently, complainant filed complaint before the SCDRC seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,04,430/- and interest @ 18% per annum. SCDRC vide order dated 31.05.2017 partly allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 11,84,192/- only along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved, appeal was filed by Insurance Company before NCDRC, which was allowed while observing in paragraph 16 as thus-
“16. It is an admitted position that the Complainant suffered damage of building due to snowfall. There is no stipulated peril listed in the policy providing cover for such damage. The Complainants have not even referred to any specific peril listed in the policy covering the damage due to snowfall. Such damage due to weather is reasonably foreseeable by those in the insured premises in the hill station and ought to have taken reasonable steps to protect the insured premises. Further, the damage occasioned in a graduated manner over a period of time on 18.01.2014 and it was reasonably feasible to prevent the snow accumulation with some efforts. Neither the reasonable care that was taken or efforts that were made to prevent such graduated accumulation of snow and damage to the tin shed, which could be normally foreseen were brought on record.”
5. The NCDRC, referring the judgment of ‘Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.1’ and ‘Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2’, observed that the terms and conditions of the insurance policies require the insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property under the insurance. Therefore, the complainant, being owner of the insured premises ought to have been aware of the regular feature of snowfall in the area and its impact on the tin roof of the premises. It was foreseeable and complainant was obliged to take reasonable care of the insured premises. Thus, there is no deficiency of service and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. As such, the order of the SCDRC was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the report of the surveyor which forms the basis of repudiation of claim. The relevant part of the survey report is required to be necessarily referred for ready reference, which reads as under-
“05) SUBJECT MATTER OF CLAIM
On 18.01.2014 it was heavy snow fall in Mussoorie from 6 AM to 3.30 PM. Snow keep on accumulating on tin shade roof up to 3 meter height. Weight exceeds with tin shade load bearing capacity and it collapsed on first floor along with false ceiling below tin shade around 03:30 PM for which insured has lodged the claim with underwriter.
The details of items affected and respective sum insured are
| DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY | SUM INSURED |
| Building Super-Structure | 52,00,000 |
| Furniture, Fixture & Fitting | 10,50,000 |
06) BRIEF LOSS PARTICULAR
| Date of Loss | : | 18.01.2014 |
| Perils Reported | : | Snow Fall |
| Instructions Received for Survey | : | 20.01.2014 |
| Date of Survey | : | 21.01.2014 |
| Premises where loss took Place | : | Company Garden Mussoorie UK |
| Reported item damaged | : | Building & FFF |
| Estimated Loss | : | Rs./- |
07) CAUSE OF LOSS
Cause of loss reported by insured is snow fall and we also verified at the time of our inspection that snow fall caused this loss. Insured provided a detailed statement (Annexure-IV). Incident was also published in news paper (Annexure-V).
As from above it is clear that peril operated was snow fall which is outside the scope and purview of fire policy issued by underwriter and held by insured as on date of loss. Hence insured is not liable for claim and claim may be repudiated as no claim.
08) NATURE & EXTENT OF DAMAGES
Eco boards ceiling with texture paint fixed with aluminum profile as false ceiling with total area 421 sq. meter collapsed on floor and damaged completely.
Pre-coated GCI sheets roofing on tubular pipe structure collapsed on floor and damaged completely.
FFF items kept on first floor damaged. 18 chairs, 4 sofa, 2 granite stone top table, 02 concealed ceiling havells light, 4 wall fans & 4 ceiling fan damaged in this mishap.”
7. The above report, inter-alia contends that the peril (subject matter of claim) was snowfall, which is outside the scope and purview of the Business Shield Policy issued by the Insurance Company. A perusal of letter of repudiation of claim makes it clear that in the fire tariff, snowfall was not a named peril, and therefore, not covered within the policy. To appreciate the repudiation by the Insurance Company, it is necessary to refer the terms of the policy in question. Relevant terms are as under:
SECTION – I
FIRE AND ALLIED PERILS-BUILDINGS & CONTENTS
| WHAT WE COVER | WHAT WE EXECUTE |
| Loss or Damages directly caused to Building and its contents by insured perils listed hereunder and subject to its not being otherwise excluded. | |
| Fire | i) Destruction or damage caused to the property by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion or its undergoing any heating or drying process ii) Burning of property insured by order of any public Authority |
| Lightning | |
| Explosion/Implosion | iii) Explosion/implosion losses to boilers (other than domestic boilers), economizers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus (in which steam is generated) including their contents iv) Destruction or damage to property caused by centrifugal forces |
| xx xx xx xx | |
| xx xx xx xx | |
| Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation. | |
| Bursting and overflowing of water tank, apparatus and pipes | |
| Missile testing operations | |
| xx xx xx xx | |
xx xx xx xx
General Conditions
1. Notice:
Every notice and communication to us required by or in respect of this policy shall be in writing.
2. Reasonable care:
You must take all reasonable steps to protect the property insured, prevent damage or accidents and maintain the property insured in a sound condition.
3. Mis-description:
This Policy shall be void and premium paid shall be forfeited in the event of mis-representation, mis-description or non-disclosure of any materials facts by you or your representative.
xx xx xx xx
8. Section I of the policy deals with ‘Fire and Allied Perils-Building & Contents’, clearly specifies what is covered and what is excluded. Under ‘what we cover’ column, it has been clearly specified that ‘storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation’ are covered. It is pertinent that no exclusions have been specified within the column ‘what we cover’. It is further to be noted that no exception has been inserted indicating that in a situation like the incident in the present case, the claim may be repudiated if due care and caution have not been taken.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant inter-alia submitted that the reason for repudiation is not based on failure to take reasonable steps to protect the insured property, or due care and caution by the insured. To canvass his submission, he has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed by Insurance Company before SCDRC, wherein no such defence in the pleadings has been taken by the company. Hence, it is urged that the defence as put forth and the reasoning as assigned by the NCDRC is not justified.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vociferously placed reliance on the general conditions specified in Clause 2 in the policy, which deals with reasonable care indicating that the insured must take all reasonable steps to protect the property ensured, prevent damage or accidents and maintain the property insured in a sound condition. He further submits that the said clause has been rightly relied upon by NCDRC to negate the claim of the insured. It is urged that the terms and conditions and the words used in a contract of insurance must be given paramount importance and it is not open to the Court to add, delete or substitute any words therein. Once the general condition stipulate due care and caution to be taken by the policy-holder, which failed in the present case, the claim was rightly put down.
11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, the reason of repudiation of claim is required to be looked into. As per the letter of repudiation, the reason assigned was that ‘as per fire tariff, snowfall is not a named peril, therefore, cause of loss is not covered under the policy’. When the policy is visualized, the snowfall may not be covered within ‘fire and allied perils’ in Section-I of the policy. In the report of the surveyor, and the reason assigned by NCDRC, in reference to Clause 2 (reasonable care) of the General Conditions, due care and caution do not apply in the facts. Clause 5 of the Surveyor report, i.e., ‘Subject Matter of Claim’, categorically mentions that on 18.01.2014, since morning 6.00 a.m. till 3.30 p.m., there was heavy snowfall and the snow kept on accumulating on the tin shed roof up to height of three meters. The weight exceeded the load bearing capacity of the tin shed and it collapsed on first floor along with the false ceiling below around 3.30 p.m.
12. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that on the date of incident, i.e., 18.01.2004, there was continuous and heavy snowfall since early morning around 6 a.m. till late afternoon. In such a bad weather condition, no person could have taken care and caution for removing the snow which was getting accumulated above the tin shed. In the continuous snowfall, no one can come out of house for clearing the snow accumulated due to continuous heavy snowfall. Considering the aforesaid, in our considered view, it cannot be said that the case of the insured would fall within the ambit of reasonable care under Clause 2 of the General Conditions of the insurance policy, and by applying such clause, the claim of the complainant cannot be frustrated in entirety. Therefore, the plea of the Insurance Company supporting the finding of the NCDRC does not hold water, hence repelled.
13. It is neither the case of the Insurance Company that the snowfall was in intervals nor the claim has been repudiated on the said ground. If snowfall was in intervals, a prudent man can think of exercising reasonable care and may have a chance to clear the snow, however in the present case, due to continuous snowfall from early morning till afternoon, snow was accumulated on the roof of the tin up to three meters, and removing such snow in order to save the tin shed was improbable to apply the reasonable care clause. Therefore, in our view, the plea of due care and caution, as specified in Clause 2 of the General Conditions does not apply in the peculiar facts of this case, in particular, when in exclusion column, no such condition has been specified. Thus, by applying the General Conditions, claim of the insured cannot be denied by the Consumer Courts.
14. Since we have already made clear that the peril of snowfall does not fall within the exclusions, therefore, the said defence is an afterthought and not tenable merely on the pretext of the report of the surveyor. So far as the insurance policy is concerned, the case of the Insurance Company is that it doesn’t cover snow and only covers ‘Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation’. In that regard, it is apposite to refer the definition of ‘storm’ as defined in different glossaries. “P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon3” defines storm in reference to ‘Oddy v. Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd.4’ as-
“‘Storm’ means storm, and to me it connotes some sort of violent wind usually accompanied by rain or hail or snow. Storm does not mean persistent bad weather, nor does it mean heavy rain or persistent rain by itself’.”
“Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases5”, in the context of insurance contract, defines storm in reference to ‘Glasgow Training Group (Motor Trade) v. Lombard Continental plc6’ as-
“While the “storm”, used in the insured perils clause of an insurance policy, might involve an element of violence in the sense of rapid movement of air or water, it was not to be restricted to that meaning, nor to the particular technical significance of the Beaufort Scale. It could also properly be used to cover an extreme or unusually intense precipitation.”
A perusal of the above definitions makes it clear that the word ‘storm’ does not have a restrictive meaning and is not confined to persistent bad weather or heavy rain itself. It may encompass other incidences depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The understanding of the definitions above shows that the word ‘storm’ should not be interpreted in a restrictive sense to apply it narrowly. It is not limited only to situations involving continuous severe weather or heavy rainfall. It may encompass broader range of events, depending on the fact situation occurred and vary from case to case. In other words, what qualifies as a storm must be assessed contextually, and may include various related natural disturbances beyond the conventional understanding of rain or persistent bad weather.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the reasoning assigned by the NCDRC concurring the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company is not in conformity with the terms of the policy. As such, the judgment of NCDRC is set aside and the judgment passed by the SCDRC is restored. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the claim as allowed by the SCDRC be paid to the claimants.
16. During hearing, it is informed that 50% of the amount awarded was deposited before the NCDRC along with interest. However, it is directed that the said amount be immediately disbursed in favour of the insured and the remaining amount be paid by the Insurance Company after adjusting the amount already paid, within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5044/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-01-2024 in FA No. 1591/2017 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi]
Food Court the Company Garden Society.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.….Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed and the claim as allowed by the SCDRC be paid to the claimants in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 (2010) 10 SCC 567
2 (2020) 3 SCC 455
3 7th Edition, 2024, Lexis Nexis, Pg. 6090.
4 (1996) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 134, 138 per VEALE J.
5 7th Edition, 2024, Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, South Asian Edition, Pg. 2630.
6 1989 SC 30
§ 2025 INSC 1495
