2009 (9) TMI 923 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the flashover and fire was the proximate cause of the damage in question? Whether the chain of events prove that the fire was the efficient and active cause of the damage?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether there was a fire.
2. Examination of the proximate cause of the damage.
3. Interpretation of the terms of the insurance policy, specifically the exclusion clause.
4. Analysis of the chain of events leading to the damage.
5. Consideration of legal precedents on proximate cause and insurance claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Whether There Was a Fire:
The court first needed to determine if there was a fire. It was admitted that a short circuit caused a flashover. The court referred to the definition of flashover, noting it involves the near simultaneous ignition of all combustible material in an enclosed area. The surveyor's report confirmed that the flashover resulted in the burning of paint and melting of the panel board, indicating the presence of fire. The court concluded that the duration of the fire is irrelevant; even a fire for a fraction of a second qualifies as a fire under the policy terms.

2. Examination of the Proximate Cause of the Damage:
The main question was whether the flashover and fire were the proximate cause of the damage. The court noted that proximate cause is the active and efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events leading to the damage. The insurance company admitted in its written statement that the flashover/fire started the chain of events resulting in the damage. The court referred to various legal precedents, including Lynn Gas and Electric Company vs. Meriden Fire Insurance Company and others, which established that the proximate cause is not necessarily the nearest in time or place but the cause that sets in motion a continuous sequence of events leading to the damage.

3. Interpretation of the Terms of the Insurance Policy:
The court examined the fire policy, noting that the term used was 'fire' and not 'sustained fire.' The court emphasized that it is well settled that courts cannot add words to a statute or document and must read it as it is. The exclusion clause (g) of the insurance policy was also scrutinized. It was found that while the clause excludes damage to electrical machinery caused by short circuiting, arcing, or self-heating, it includes damage to other machinery or apparatus caused by the fire resulting from such events. Therefore, the court concluded that the insurance company's repudiation of the policy on the grounds of no 'sustained fire' was not justified.

4. Analysis of the Chain of Events Leading to the Damage:
The court detailed the sequence of events starting from the short circuiting in the main switchboard, which led to a flashover, generating excessive heat, charring paint, and producing smoke and soot. This smoke and ionized air traveled to the generator compartment, causing a short circuit and tripping the generator power, leading to the stoppage of electricity supply. This stoppage resulted in thermal shock to the boiler due to the continued entry of high-temperature flue gases, ultimately causing the damage. The court found that there was an unbroken connection between the flashover/fire and the damage, with no intervening independent cause.

5. Consideration of Legal Precedents:
The court referred to several foreign court decisions to support its interpretation of proximate cause. These included cases like Lynn Gas and Electric Company vs. Meriden Fire Insurance Company, Krenie C. Frontis et al. vs. Milwaukee Insurance Company, and Leyland Shipping Company Limited vs. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited. These cases established that the proximate cause is the initiating event that sets off a chain of events leading to the damage, without any new and independent cause intervening.

In conclusion, the court found that the flashover/fire was the proximate cause of the damage, and the insurance company's repudiation of the claim was not justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upheld.