ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.M, Tripathi and the learned Counsel for the respondent and gone through the record.
2. The complainant M/s. Chinni Advertisers HAS taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 from Andhra Bank under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yozna Scheme for erecting advertisement hoardings in Nallore. Necessary permission WAS granted by the Municipality by the order dated 4th May, 1995. The erected 16 hoardings at several places in Nallore and also paid advertisement tax at the cost of Rs. 4,00,000. These hoardings were not causing any problem to the public passage or throughfare. The hoardings were insured with United India Insurance Company for the period starting from 8.5.1997. The Commissioner and the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore without giving any notice had demolished 13 hoardings between 30th August, 1997 and 2nd September, 1997 and thus the complainant was put to loss of Rs. 2,44,000. The estimated loss was 5,75,000. But the Insurance Company on preferring insurance claim repudiated the claim by its letter dated 16th October, 1996. However, the complainant-respondents filed complaint claiming Rs. 2,44,000 together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 2nd September/1997 along with compensation of Rs 2,00,000 and cost.
3. The Insurance Company did not dispute the insurance policy and Surveyor N.S. Hara had given the report on 3rd October, 1997 to the effect that the hoardings were demolished by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per orders of the Government and the Joss was estimated at Rs. 1,15,752. The hoardings were demolished or removed by the Commissioner and Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore as they were encroachments as per condition No.-A of the insurance policy. As such risk relating to damage caused by removal of hoardings by these aforesaid authorities was not covered by the policy and the claim was repudiated by letter dated 16th October, 1997.
4. The District Forum allowed the compiaintholding that the complainant suffered loss due to illegal removal/damages to hoardings and directed the respondent United Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,15,752 with interest at 12% from 15.10.1997 and cost of Rs. 1000. Complaint against the Commissioner, Nallore Municipality and the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore was dismissed.
5. In so far as the Commissioner, Nallore and Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore are concerned, the case virtually proceeded ex parte against them. The State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable against them for no consideration was paid by the respondent-complainants to them and the complainants could not be considered to be consumer qua them.
6. It may be mentioned that the permission to erect these hoardings was granted under the statutory provisions and the complainant-respondents were supposed to comply those conditions. Annexure-D the sanction letter provides a condition that the hoardings shall be removed departmentally without any notice or assigning any reason, therefor, if the said hoardings are found to be objectionable in future and in no case the fee paid will be refundable. The hoardings shall be erected in such way that they are not objectionable to free flow of traffic. Permission was granted for the year 1995-96. For the first time, it was extended upto 18th April, 1996 and it is mentioned in the sanction letter dated 18th April, 1996 that the permission accorded was temporary and hoardings could be removed without giving any notice or reason therefor.
7. It was claimed by the petitioner that the permission was extended. The policy cover the risk against loss or damage to hoardings as provided in Clause-A, which reads as under:
The company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage to the hoardings described in the schedule caused by fire, burglary, accidental damage, earthquake, storm, tempest and flood, cyclone, hurricane and riot and stoke.
8. There is an exclusion clause for it is provided in, the policy that the company shall not be liable in case of intentional injury/death/ damage. The question which arises for consideration is: “Whether the removal of the authorities or unauthorised hoardings by Municipal Commissioner, Nallore or Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore under the direction of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh could be said to be an accident.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word ‘accident’ as under:
The word “accident” is derived from the Latin verb “accidcre” signifying “fall upon, befall, happen, chance.” In an etymological sense anything that happens may be said to be an accident and in this sense, the word has been defined as befalling a change; a happening; and accident; an occurrence or event.In its most commotily accepted meaning, or in its ordinary or popular sense, the word may be defined as meaning: a fortuitous circumstance, event, or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual and unexpected by the person to whom it happens; an unusual, fortuitous, unexpected, unforeseen or unlocked for event, happening or occurrence; an unusual or unexpected result attending the operation or performance of a usual or necessary act or event; chance or contingency; fortune; mishap; some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation, upon the instant, rather than something which continues, progresses or develops;something happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary or phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence. The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence;any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence, that causes injury, loss, suffering or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events. An event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation; undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event
[Emphasis supplied]
9. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be loss covered by Clause-A. Loss was not caused in an accident for removal of the hoardings was not inspected for a number of reasons: firstly there was no specific permission to continue these hoardings in the year 1997-98-the hoardings were removed between 30th August, 1997 to 2nd September, 1997, secondly the permission granted for the year 1996 was temporary and had expired; and thirdly there was a direction issued by the State Government to remove the hoardings obstructing passage. It was known to the complainant that without permissionhoardings were liable to be removed. If they were causing obstructing free flow of traffic, they were liable to be removed. The authorities were bound to comply the directions of the State Government. As such removal of hoardings in exercise of statutory authorities is neither beyond one’s foresight, or expectation nor sudden and an unexpected event. As such we find it difficult to hold that it was an accident and not a designed move of the statutory authority. The question is not whether the action of the Commissioner, Nallore was legal or not legal. The Insurance Company could not be said to be liable for the damages allegedly caused by designed removal of the hoardings in exercise of statutory authority by calling it accident. We have no inhibition in accepting that sometimes the Government Officials intentionally and sometimes unconsciously act arbitrarily leading to oppression. But here it does not appear to be so. If it was so, the Commissioner and Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore could be held to be liable. But, in the present case, the complaint has been dismissed against them and it is not claimed that any appeal or revision has been filed against dismissal of the complaint against them. In any case, the Insurance Company could not be held responsible without there being any accident or any other out of the causes enumerated in Clause-A.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible to sustain the view of the State Commission. The revision petition stands allowed and the complaint against the petitioner is dismissed.