Twenty First Century Media Private Limited v. New India Assurance Company Ltd (Nia)

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 30, 2016

'pp'..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 30th March, 2016 + W.P.(C) No.1338/2012 TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Rohan Sharma and Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, Advs. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD (NIA)….. Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns (i) Endorsement Schedule dated 17th October, 2010 issued by the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited qua the insurance policy taken by the petitioner; (ii) letters dated 27th October, 2010 and 4th October, 2011 of the respondent repudiating the claim of the petitioner under the insurance policy obtained from the respondent and seeks mandamus directing the respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner by remitting to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1.60 crore along with interest at 18% per annum from the date on which the payment became due until the date of settlement of the claim. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings completed though interim relief claimed of directing the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.1.60 crore in this Court not granted. The counsels were heard on 8th September, 2015 and judgment reserved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner (i) that one M/s. Prerana International was the successful bidder for the instadia advertising rights for the cricket matches to be held in Kochi and Goa on 17th October, 2010 and 24th October, 2010 respectively; (ii) on 24th September, 2010 the petitioner entered into an instadia advertising agreement with the said M/s. Prerana International and paid Rs.1.10 crore as consideration therefor; (iii) the petitioner in turn entered into agreements with various parties granting advertising rights in the stadia (iv) the petitioner thereafter entered into an insurance contract agreement, policy bearing no.311503/46/10/72/00000108 with the respondent on 15th October, 2010 to cover the loss of revenue for matches aforesaid; (v) the insurance policy covered the loss of revenue for a total sum of Rs.4.20 crores out of which the coverage for the Goa match scheduled on 24th October, 2010 was Rs.1.60 crores; (vi) that the policy covered the abandonment of the match arising from the perils of (a) fire and allied perils; (b) storms, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood, inundation and rain; and, (c) riot, strike and civil commotion; (vii) that the petitioner paid the entire premium of Rs.3,24,284/- for the aforesaid policy; (viii) that as per the insurance policy, cancellation of the match meant not a single ball being bowled in the match; (ix) that both the matches i.e. at Kochi on 17th October, 2010 and at Goa on 24th October, 2010 were called off due to heavy rain; (x) the petitioner informed the respondent of the same and called upon the respondent to pay the money due under the policy; (xi) that the respondent vide letter dated 17th October, 2010 sent an endorsement to the petitioner arbitrarily and unilaterally deleting the peril of storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood, inundation, rains, bad pitch conditions and wet ground conditions from the insurance policy qua the match at Goa on 24th October, 2010; (xii) the petitioner immediately vide its letter dated 20th October, 2010 protested; (xiii) the petitioner vide its letter dated 25th October, 2010 requested the respondent to settle the claim under the policy; (xiv) the respondent vide its letter dated 27th October, 2010 denied liability citing the endorsement issued on 17th October, 2010; (xv) that the subsequent deletion by the respondent of the peril inter alia of rain is void ab initio and contrary to principles of consensus ad idem and unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary; (xvi) that the respondent ultimately vide letter dated 4th October, 2011 declared that the claim of the petitioner had been repudiated by the Competent Authority of the respondent as rain peril had