Summary
The Supreme Court upheld insurance compensation for coal washed away by heavy rainfall and accumulated water. Flood and inundation cover was not confined to overflow from a nearby river or other water body; surface flooding from excessive rainfall fell within the policy. The surveyor had confirmed both flood-like conditions and accumulation, and quantum was undisputed. A chartered accountant engaged only to check stock accounts was not a second surveyor.
Issues
- Whether rain-caused surface flooding and accumulated water fell within the policy’s flood and inundation cover.
- Whether appointing an accountant to verify stocks amounted to appointing a second surveyor.
Held
- Flood includes surface or pluvial flooding caused by excessive rainfall independently of an overflowing water body. Inundation may describe both overflow and the resulting accumulation; the insurer’s narrow distinctions did not justify excluding this loss. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.1, 12.2)
- No nearby water body had been shown, so restricting flood cover to such overflow would render that cover superfluous in the circumstances. The surveyor recorded heavy rain, flood-like conditions and accumulated water washing away coal; negligence in storage and quantum were not disputed. (¶¶ 7, 12, 12.3, 13, 14)
- An accountant appointed only to verify stock declarations and accounts was not a second surveyor. The Court therefore did not decide the statutory prerequisites for appointing a second surveyor. (¶ 6)
Result
Appeal dismissed; insurer directed to pay the National Commission’s award within eight weeks. The award of ₹58,89,400 with 9% annual interest from 1 June 2004 remained in force.