In Brief
An insurance company appealed against an order requiring it to pay compensation for coal damaged by heavy rainfall. The company argued that damage from rain does not fall within the 'flood and inundation' clause of the fire insurance policy, claiming 'flood' means overflow from water bodies only. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 'flood' includes pluvial (surface) floods caused by excessive rainfall, independent of any water body, and that 'flood' and 'inundation' are synonymous terms. The court directed the insurer to pay the compensation of Rs. 58,89,400 awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within eight weeks.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.