Case: New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. M/S Zuari Indsustries Ltd.

3. The facts of the case were that the complainant (respondent in this appeal) had taken Insurance Policies from the appellant on 1.4.1998 in respect of its factory situated in Jauhri Nagar, Goa. One policy was a fire policy and the other was a consequential loss due to fire policy.4. On 8.1.1999 at about 3.20 p.m. there was a short circuiting in the main switch board installed in the sub-station receiving electricity from the State Electricity Board, which resulted in a flashover producing over currents. The flashover and over currents generated excessive heat. The paint on the panel board was charred by this excessive heat producing smoke and soot and the partition of the adjoining feeder developed a hole. The smoke /soot along with the ionized air traveled to the generator compartment where also there was short circuiting and the generator power also tripped. As a result, the entire electric supply to the plant stopped and due to the stoppage of electric supply, the supply of water/steam to the waste heat boiler by the flue gases at high temperature continued to be fed into the boiler, which resulted in damage to the boiler.5. As a result the respondent -complainant approached the Insurance Company informing it about the accident and making its claim. Surveyors were appointed who submitted their report but the appellant-Insurance Company vide letter dated 4.9.2000 rejected the claim. Hence the petition before the National Commission.6. The claimant-respondent made two claims (I) Rs.1,35,17,709/- for material loss due to the damage to the boiler and other equipments and (ii) Rs.19,11,10,000/- in respect of loss of profit for the period the plant remained

Reasoning: 14. In our opinion the duration of the fire is not relevant. As long as there is a fire which caused the damage the claim is maintainable, even if the fire is for a fraction of a second. The term `Fire in clause (1) of the Fire Policy `C is not qualified by the word sustained. It is well settled that the Court cannot add words to statute or to a document and must read it as it is. Hence repudiation of the policy on the ground that there was no `sustained fire in our opinion is not justified.15. We have perused the fire policy in question which is annexure P-1 to this appeal. The word used therein is fire and not sustained fire. Hence the stand of the Insurance Company in this connection is not acceptable.Apparently there is no direct decision of this Court on this point as to the meaning of proximate cause, but there are decisions of foreign Courts, and the predominant view appears to be that the proximate cause is not the cause which is nearest in time or place but the active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train or chain of events which brings about the ultimate result without the intervention of any other force working from an independent source.23. Thus in LynnGas and Electric Company vs. Meriden Fire Insurance Company & Ors. 158 Mass. 570; 33 N.E. 690; 1893 Mass. LEXIS 345 Supreme Court of Massachusettswas concerned with a case where a fire occurred in the wire tower of the plaintiffs building, through which the wires of electric lighting were carried from the building. The fire was speedily extinguished, without contact with other parts of the building and contents, and with slight damage to the tower or its contents. However, in a part of the building remote from the fire and untouched thereby, there occurred a disruption by centrifugal force of the fly wheel of the engine and their pulleys connected therewith, and by this disruption the plaintiffs building and machinery were damaged to a large extent. It was held that the proximate cause was not the cause nearest in time or place, and it may operate through successive instruments, as an article at the end of a chain may be moved by a force applied to the other end. The question always is : Was there an unbroken connection between the wrongful act and the injury, a continuous operation? In other words, did the facts constitute a continuous succession of events, so linked together as to make a natural whole, or there was some new and independent cause intervening between the wrong and the injury?24. The same view was taken in KrenieC. Frontis et al. vs. Milwaukee Insurance Company 156 Conn. 492; 242 A.2d 749; 1968 Conn. LEXISThe facts in that case were that the plaintiffs owned the northerly half of a building that shared a common wall with a factory next door. A fire broke out in the factory and damaged that building. Minimal fire damage occurred to the plaintiffs building. However, due to the damage next door, the building inspector ordered the removal of the three upper stories of the factory building, which left the common wall insufficiently supported. Due to the safety issue, the inspector ordered the third and fourth floors of plaintiffs building to be demolished. On this fact it was held that the fire was the active and efficient cause that set in motion a chain of events which brought about the result without the intervention of any new and independent source, and hence was the proximate cause of the damage.In The Matter of an Arbitration between Etheringtonand the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Insurance Company [1909] 1 K.B. 591by the terms of the policy (an accident) the insurance company undertook that if the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external and visible means, then, in case such injuries should, within three calendar months of the causing of such injury, directly cause the death of the insured, damages would be paid to his legal heirs. There was a proviso in the policy that this policy only insured against death where the accident was the proximate cause of the death. The assured while hunting had a fall and the ground being very wet he was wetted to the skin. The effect of the shock lowered the vitality of his system and being obliged to ride home afterwards, while wet, still further lowered his vitality. As a result he developed pneumonia and died. The Court of Appeal uphold the claim holding that the accident was the proximate cause of death.29. In the present case, it is evident from the chain of events that the fire was the efficient and active cause of the damage. Had the fire not occurred, the damage was also would not have occurred and there was no intervening agency which was an independent source of the damage.30. Hence we cannot agree with the conclusion of the surveyors that the fire was not the cause of the damage to the machinery of the claimant.31. Moreover in General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1644 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that in case of ambiguity in a contract of insurance the ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.