Legal Review and Analysis of Food Court The Company Garden Society vs Universal Sompo General Insurance Co Ltd 2025 INSC 1495
Case Synopsis
Food Court The Company Garden Society v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) INSC 1495
Synopsis: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a policyholder, holding that heavy snowfall constitutes a "storm" under a standard insurance policy. It curtailed the insurer's ability to repudiate claims by disallowing new defense grounds raised at appellate stages and interpreting "reasonable care" clauses contextually, not as a mandate for impossible preventive actions during active natural calamities.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Food Court The Company Garden Society v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2025) INSC 1495 (Supreme Court of India, decided on November 18, 2025). Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The Consumer Protection Act (implicitly, as the case originated from Consumer Fora).
Principles of Contract Law and Insurance Law.
Interpretation of insurance policy terms, specifically the "Fire and Allied Perils" section.
General Condition Clause 2 of the insurance policy concerning "Reasonable Care".
Judicial definitions of "Storm" as referenced from legal glossaries: P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon and Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, a society, held a "Business Shield Policy" (a comprehensive risk insurance policy) for its building in Mussoorie. On January 18, 2014, heavy and continuous snowfall led to the accumulation of snow on the building's tin roof, exceeding its load-bearing capacity and causing the roof to collapse, damaging the structure and contents. The insured filed a claim which was repudiated by the Insurance Company (Respondent). The insurer's sole stated reason was that "snowfall" was not a "named peril" under the fire tariff of the policy and hence the loss was not covered. The State Commission (SCDRC) allowed the claim in part. The National Commission (NCDRC) reversed this order, introducing a new rationale that the insured failed to take "reasonable care" to prevent snow accumulation as required under General Condition Clause 2 of the policy, and thus the insurer was not liable.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the damage caused by heavy and continuous snowfall is covered under the "Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon..." peril mentioned in the insurance policy?
Whether, in the specific facts of this case, the insurer could validly repudiate the claim based on the insured's alleged failure to take "reasonable care" under General Condition Clause 2, especially when this ground was not originally cited in the repudiation letter?
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC's order, restoring the SCDRC's award. The Court's reasoning was twofold:
On the Coverage of "Snowfall" under "Storm": The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the term "storm" as used in the insurance contract. Referring to authoritative legal dictionaries, it held that "storm" is not restricted to violent wind or heavy rain alone. It can encompass "an extreme or unusually intense precipitation." The Court adopted a contextual and non-restrictive interpretation, concluding that the heavy and continuous snowfall in this case, which led to the collapse of the roof, qualified as a "storm" under the policy's covered perils. Since "snowfall" was not listed as an exclusion, the claim was prima facie admissible.
On the "Reasonable Care" Clause: The Court scrutinized the insurer's conduct. It noted that the original repudiation was solely on the ground that snowfall was not a named peril. The defense of "failure to take reasonable care" was an afterthought, raised only at the NCDRC stage and not pleaded initially. On merits, the Court examined the factual scenario: the snowfall was continuous from early morning till afternoon, accumulating to a height of three meters. In such extreme weather conditions, it was impossible for any person to safely clear the snow continuously. Therefore, the failure to prevent accumulation did not constitute a breach of the "reasonable care" clause in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The Court emphasized that this general condition could not be used to deny a claim when no specific exclusion for such a situation existed in the policy.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: Contextual Interpretation of Insurance Policies and the Limits of "Reasonable Care" Clauses
Main Issue & Analysis
The core of this judgment addresses the interpretative approach courts must adopt for insurance contracts and the factual application of standard policy conditions.
Interpretation Against the Drafter (Contra Proferentem): The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that ambiguities in an insurance policy, which is drafted by the insurer, must be interpreted in favour of the insured. The insurer had argued for a narrow, technical meaning of "storm." The Court rejected this, opting for a broader, contextual meaning that aligned with the natural and common understanding of a severe weather event causing damage. By ruling that an "extreme precipitation" of snow constitutes a storm, the Court prevented insurers from relying on overly restrictive definitions to deny claims for proximate natural calamities.
The Impermissibility of Shifting Defences: A significant procedural and substantive core of the judgment is its condemnation of the insurer's change in stance. The repudiation letter is the foundational document for an insurance claim dispute. The Court held that an insurer cannot, at appellate stages, invent new grounds for denial that were not originally communicated to the insured. This ensures transparency and allows the insured to know the exact case they must meet from the outset.
"Reasonable Care" is Fact-Specific and Not Absolute: The judgment provides crucial clarity on General Condition Clause 2. It establishes that the obligation to take "all reasonable steps" is not an absolute or limitless duty. "Reasonableness" is assessed based on the specific, practical circumstances faced by the insured. In a situation involving an active, continuous, and severe natural event like a snowstorm, the standard of "reasonable care" does not extend to requiring impossible or dangerous interventions. The clause cannot be invoked as a blanket defense to avoid liability for losses caused by covered perils.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was set aside, and the order of the State Commission (SCDRC) directing the insurer to pay Rs. 11,84,192/- with 6% interest was restored. The Court directed the immediate disbursement of the 50% amount already deposited with the NCDRC and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the remaining balance within four weeks.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
MCQ 1: In Food Court The Company Garden Society v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., what was the Supreme Court's primary reasoning for interpreting the term "storm" in the insurance policy to include the heavy snowfall in question?
a) Because the policy explicitly listed "snowfall" as a covered peril.
b) Because the Court adopted a broad, contextual interpretation, holding that "storm" can include an extreme or unusually intense precipitation.
c) Because the surveyor's report confirmed that the damage was severe.
d) Because the insured had paid a high premium for the policy.
MCQ 2: The Supreme Court rejected the insurer's defense based on the "reasonable care" clause (Clause 2) for which of the following key reasons?
a) The clause was not part of the signed insurance contract.
b) The insured society was a corporate entity and thus exempt from such clauses.
c) This ground was not cited in the original repudiation letter, and on facts, removing snow during continuous heavy snowfall was not a "reasonable" step.
d) The State Commission had already ruled that the clause was invalid.
Blog Posts
