Devinder Kumar, Managing Director of Complainant Company (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as opposite party').
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Soni Conductor (P) Ltd. D-32 New Focal Point, Dabwali Road, Bathinda is registered under the Companies Act and Sh. Davinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Niwas is the Managing Director of the complainant company. The complainant got insured its premises and stock with the opposite party under Standard Fire and Special Pearls (Single Block) policy No. 20401111P1010185552 for the period from 27-4-2016 to 26-4-2017 for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- i.e Rs. 20,00,000/- for building and Rs. 10,00,000/- for stocks and paid premium as fixed by the opposite party. Unfortunately that caught fire due to short circuit of electricity and heating chamber of the Electric Transformer on 26-10-2016 at 6.30 p.m. It caused damage to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The opposite party was duly intimated about the occurrence of fire immediately. The detail of damaged articles was also given to the opposite party. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party to admit his lawful claim but all in vain. The opposite party has rather rejected the claim vide its letter dated 16-3-2017. Due to this act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant suffered from mental tension. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/- in addition to claim amount of loss and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complainant obtained Standard Fire and Special Pearls Policy effective from 27-04-2016 to 26-04-2017. Copy of Insurance policy along with its terms and conditions was duly supplied to the complainant. Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of Insurance policy.
It is pleaded that after receipt of intimation regarding alleged loss/ fire, Rakesh K. Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to survey the damages and assess the loss caused by fire which allegedly took place on 26-10-2016 in the heating chamber of the insured premises. He submitted his report dated 24-11-2016 with opposite party. The surveyor has mentioned the cause of fire that loss has occurred while stocks of winded transformers were placed in oven/ heating chamber for drying. It is not covered under the policy condition exclusion clause 1(a) (ii) of the fire which reads as under :-
Fire: Excluding destruction or damage caused to the property insured by:
(i) its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion
(ii) its undergoing any heating or drying process
It is further pleaded that complainant himself has admitted vide his letter while giving intimation to the opposite party that fire has occurred to the transformers during heat/drying while lying in the heating chamber and badly damaged. As such, the claim was not payable. After receipt of survey report, opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16-03-2017. The repudiation is perfectly legal and as per terms and conditions of the policy. In claim intimation Form submitted by the complainant, the complainant admitted the cause of fire/ loss as heating chamber was in heating and drying process.
The further legal objections are that complainant carried on commercial activities. He is not a consumer. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. That the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party State Bank of Patiala through whom complainant has obtained Insurance policy and the loan. That the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint. He has not come to Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed true and material facts. That the complainant has no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the amount of compensation claimed is hightly excessive and exorbitant and lastly that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is liable to be dismissed with special cost.
On merits, the opposite party has denied all the material averments. The opposite party has reiterated its stand as taken in legal objections as detailed above. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complant, complainant has tendered into evidence copy of resolution (Ex. C-1), photocopy of repudiation letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Insurance policy (Ex. C-3), photographs (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6), his affidavit dated 3-1-2018 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of resolution (Ex. C-8), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10), photocopy of claim bill (Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-13) and closed the evidence.
In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 21-3-2018 of Baldev Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), affidavit dated 21-3-2018 of Er. Rakesh Gupta (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of survey report (Ex. OP-1/4 & Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of claim form (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of photographs (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/8 & Ex.OP-1/9) and closed the evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
The admitted facts are that the complainant availed Insurance policy covering building and stocks from the opposite party. Copy of the insurance Policy is Ex. C-3. The covered period is 27-4-2016 to 26-4-2017. Fire broke out in the insured premises and complainant lodged claim with the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter (Ex. C-2) on the following grounds :-
(i) Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you (complainant), you have not complied with the required papers/documents.
(iii) We (opposite party) closed your claim file on account of the following reason :-
'Perils not covered”
Therefore, the entire controversy is whether the loss occurred to the premises was covered under the policy or not.
The Claim Form submitted by the complainant is Ex. OP-1/6. Under the heading of 'DETAILS OF LOSS”, the complainant has mentioned
“Cause of fire/Loss – Heating Chamber was in heating and drying process'. The Item of policy effect is mentioned as – 'Heating Chamber'.
The opposite party has also placed on record copy of letter dated 27-11-2016 (Ex. OP-1/9) vide which the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding incident. In this letter, the complainant has admitted that due to fire on 27-11-2016, 'Transformer Jobs during heat/drying lying in heating chamber damaged. Three jobs has badly damaged by fire.'
Therefore, from the intimation letter dated 27-11-2016 as well Claim Form (Ex. OP-1/6), it emerges that loss was due to Heating Chamber when it was in heating and drying process.
Copy of Insurance Policy is Ex. C-3. As per this policy, fire incident/loss is covered excluding destruction or damage caused to the property insured by “its undergoing any heating or drying process.”
It is well settled that claim is always to be decided as per terms and conditions of policy document. The policy document makes it clear that damage caused by undergoing any heating or drying process is excluded. Therefore, the opposite party has decided to repudiate the claim.
In the complaint also, the complainant has pleaded that fire took place due to short circuit of electricity.
“General Exclusions is the part of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As per Condition No. '7' – Insurance Company is not liable for any loss, destruction or any damage to electric machine, operators, fixtures or fitting arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, cell fitting or leakage of electricity etc.,
Therefore, from this angle also, claim of the complainant is not payable.
The net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
21-11-2019
(M.P.Singh Pahwa )
President
(Manisha)
Member
