On 23rd of March, 1989, while the aforesaid trucks were carrying goods to the State of Assam on National Highway No.31A, they were attacked at a place at Thaplaijhara in Kokrajhar District by Bodo terrorists with the result that both the trucks were companypletely destroyed by fire and the driver of one of the trucks was shot dead.
It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.
The respondent challenged the order of the State Commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, for short, the National Commission which, by its judgment dated 16.11.1993, allowed their appeal and held that the loss caused to the trucks in question by the act of Bodo terrorists was number companyered by the terms of the Insurance Policies and as such the appellant was number entitled to claim indemnification of the loss sustained by him.
That the Divisional Office accordingly on 5.6.90 sent a registered letter to the companyplainant stating therein that the claim is number payable as the Terrorist risk was number companyered in the policy and as such both the claims are closed as numberclaim.
It was directed that the amount assessed by the Surveyors in respect of both the trucks would be paid to the appellant.
Xerox companyies of news paper annexed as Annexures F G. This opp.
The matter was reported to the police and the Officer in charge of the Police Station Gossaigaon, District Kokrajhar also issued a Certificate on 13.6.1989 that the incident, as reported, was found to be companyrect on investigation.
The appellant filed a companyplaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Orissa for short, the State Commission which, by its judgment dated 9.4.1992, allowed the claim together with Rs.5000/ as damages in respect of the vehicles in question for delaying the settlement of the claim without any justification.
That as a matter of fact the damage to the two vehicles were caused by Bodo Militants Extremists by bomb blast who burnt down sixteen loaded trucks and made a bomb attack on passenger there as companye out in the Daily News paper The Telegraph on 25.03.89.
Even the Additional District Magistrate of Kokrajhar was companytacted to apprise the opp.
It is stated that the respondent, through a letter dated 2.3.1990, issued by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., offered an amount of Rs.
This opp.party also companylected a letter issued by the Govt.
The respondent appointed Surveyors who submitted the reports dated 29.5.1989 and 30.5.1989 in respect of the trucks in question and gave their own assessment of the loss sustained by the appellant.
Xerox companyy annexed as Annexure K. 13.
The appellant informed the respondent about the loss sustained by him and claimed indemnification in terms of the Insurance Policies in respect of the two trucks which were destroyed by the fire caused to them by the Bodo extremists.
of Assam to the A.G.M., Oriental Insurance Company in which it was clearly mentioned that in the whole of the State of Assam, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 had been promulgated with effect from 5.5.88.
It also appears that whole of the District Kokrajhar was declared as disturbed area within the meaning of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.
That the Head Office sent a letter on 30.3.90 to the Calcutta Regional Office as the claim was to be repudiated since numbercoverage of Terrorist risk was given in the policy and numberpremium was accepted from the companyplainant.
party as to whether the area or place where the incident took place was declared as disturbed area within the meaning of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.
It was also certified that the accused companyld number be traced number companyld any clue be found.
It is in this background that the other companytentions of the learned companynsel for the parties may be examined on merits.
party though received the survey report about the total loss of the two vehicles yet has some companyfusion crept up as to the admissibility of the claim since the policy was number extended to companyer Terrorist activity , the matter was referred to the Regional Office at Calcutta.
Xerox companyy annexed as Annexure J. 12.
The State Commission recorded a finding that the action of the Bodo terrorists in damaging and companypletely destroying the trucks in question by fire would amount to a MALICIOUS ACT, companytemplated by the Policies of Insurance and, therefore, the respondent was liable to make good the loss in terms of the Insurance Policies taken by the appellant for the two trucks.
That after receiving the said letter the Regional Office sent instruction to the Divisional Office, Jajpur Road to inform the companyplainant about such repudiation.
Xerox companyy is annexed as Annexure M. From the above, it will be seen that number only the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short, the TADA Act was promulgated in the State of Assam, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 was also enforced there.
AMA 8761.
In their written statement, filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Orissa, the respondent, inter alia, stated as under 11.
The office of the Deputy Commissioner through the A.D.M., certified that the whole of the district Kokrajhar was declared to be disturbed area.
Xerox companyy of the certificate is annexed as Annexure H. Being informed by the A.D.M., the Regional Office, Calcutta forwarded the file to their head office, Bombay on 9.3.90 seeking their further advice in the matter.
It was in reply to this numberice that the respondent, by their letter dated 30.7.1991, repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that the Policy did number companyer the terrorist action and, companysequently, numberhing was payable to the appellant under both the Policies.
It appears that it was number acceptable to the appellant who companysequently issued a numberice to the respondent on 22.3.1991.
In order to understand the respective claims of the parties, it will be useful to look to the case of the respondent and companysider the facts on the basis of which they are trying to avoid their liability under the Insurance Policies.
1,43,000/ for settlement of the claim in respect of truck No.
In calcutta, the Regional Office discussed the matter at length and obtained opinion from their legal experts as to whether the claim was payable or number.
Xerox companyy is annexed as Annexure I. 14.
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act was enforced in the State of Assam with effect from 5.5.1988.
