Counsel for the complainant: M/s V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the opp.parties: Mr.V.Sambasiva Rao.
QUORUM: SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAXMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
The complainant represented by its Managing Director filed the complaint under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties seeking directions to opposite parties as follows:
- To direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.52,73,610/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 03-4-2013 till the date of realization towards machinery breakdown through policy bearing No.151102/44/11/51/30000023;
- To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
- To pay costs of Rs.25,000/-.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant obtained Machinery Breakdown Policy bearing No.151102/44/11/51/30000023 for a period of one year from 31-12-2011 to 30-12-2012 for a sum of Rs.3,23,00,000/- for covering power plant at Jegurupadu via Kadiyam and paid a premium of Rs.2,00,791/- On 08-8-2012 at about 10.30 a.m there were heavy vibration and abnormal sounds and the Turbine tripped and break down occurred. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite parties and the O.Ps. appointed M/s Garg & Company, Bangalore as surveyors to assess the loss.
The complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the surveyor including the quotations for a Turbine from the manufacturer, M/s Triveni Turbines Ltd., for Rs.69,77,000/- + 2% VAT totaling to Rs.71,16,540/-. The surveyor inspected the machinery break down premises and submitted their survey report dated 26-12-2012 for net liability of insurer at Rs.19,19,077/-. The O.Ps. appointed one Mr.M.S.Prasad, Secunderabad as Investigator to investigate the claim and he submitted his report dated 21-3-2013 concluding that due to lack of periodical maintenance resulted in wear and tear of turbine broke down.
The complainant submitted that on 02-4-2013, OP1 repudiated the claim stating that the breakdown of “Turbine” is not due to voltage/fluctuations or of a foreign particle entered into the Turbine and that no overhaul of the turbine was done since 2009 and that the breakdown was due to normal wear and tear only and also alleged that the complainant removed the Turbine without their permission from Jegurupadu to Bangalore in violation of the conditions of the policy and repudiated the claim. On 06-6-2013 the complainant submitted a representation to OPs. 1 & 2 clarifying that the breakdown was not due to normal wear and tear and that the overhauling of the Turbine will not be done as per the age but as per the running hours of the Turbine and that overhauling will be done for every alternative 3 years if it runs 100% continuously and that the subject Turbine run sparingly and that the breakdown of the Turbine was not due to wear and tear as it run for one year 10 months since November, 2009 to August 2012, well within the limits of overhauling due date. The complainant also enclosed month wise statement of stoppage of hours of the Turbine and power generation particulars duly singed by the Deputy Electrical Inspector and the same was also submitted/marked to opposite party No.1 and inspite of the same, the opposite parties have not reconsidered their decision of repudiation. The O.Ps have not furnished copies of survey report and the investigation report as per IRDA provisions and as such the complainant claimed the same under the Right to Information Act.
The complainant submitted that on perusal of Survey report, it is clear that the assessment was not properly made and the surveyor erroneously observed that the insurance coverage was not adequate, he also deducted salvage at Rs.3,00,000/- and assessed the net loss at Rs19,19,077/- only and the investigator also concluded that the break down of the Turbine was due to wear and tear and due to lack of periodical maintenance and that the opposite parties failed to appreciate the explanation given by the complainant in the letter dated 06-6-2013 and also failed to reconsider their decision of the repudiation and submitted that the repudiation is arbitrary and unreasonable and without any basis and that the same amounts to not only unfair trade practice but also deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties filed written version denying the material allegations made against them in the complaint and contended that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complainant is a company under the Companies Act originated for running the business for profits and the complaint required full pledged enquiry by way of suit and the complainant to avoid payment of court fees before the civil court, approached this Commission and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The opposite parties admitted the issuance of the policy bearing No.151102/44/11/51/30000023 for a period of one year from 31-12-2011 to 30-12-2012 for a sum of Rs.3,23,00,000/-. The opposite parties also admitted that after receiving the information from the complainant about the alleged breakdown of the Turbine on 08-8-2012, they appointed M/s Garg & Company, Bangalore as surveyors to assess the loss and the surveyor after detailed enquiry submitted their report dated 26-12-2012 and thereafter they appointed one Mr.M.S.Prasad, Technical person to enquire into the facts of the case as well as the reasons for the alleged breakdown of Turbine on 08-8-2012 and the said investigator filed his detailed investigation report on 21-3-2013. According to the records produced by the investigator, the Turbine was overhauled during June/July, 2009 and subjected for continuous work until 3 years till breakdown and as per the policy, the 4000 KW Turbine has to be overhauled for alteast every two years and if the Turbine is allowed to work continuously with overdue overhauling period. The opposite parties submit that the breakdown of the Turbine was due to wear and tear for not overhauling and the contention of the complainant that the Turbine ran for 1 year 10 months since November, 2009 to August, 2012 cannot be accepted and the overhauling can be counted on year basis and not on hourly basis.
The opposite parties further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy at page 10 at condition No.3, “Inspection of Turbines and Turbo Generators”, All Mechanical and electrical parts of any steam turbine, gas turbine or generator upto 30,000 KW shall be inspected and overhauled thoroughly under the supervision of makers representatives in a completely opened up state atleast every two years, for turbines or generators exceeding 30,000 KW every 4 years. The overhauling shall take place after 32000 hours of operation and a copy of the report issued by makers representative on such inspection and overhauling shall be furnished to the company immediately after the work has been carried out.
The opposite parties contend that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy particularly at (6) Duties following an accident at Page 11, in the event of any occurrence which might give rise to the claim under this policy, the insured shall
- Immediately notify the company by telephone or telegram as well as in writing, giving an indication as to the nature and extent of loss or damage
c)preserve the damaged or defective parts and make them available for inspection by an official or surveyor of the company.
The complainant shifted the turbine in question from the plant at Jegurpadu to M/s Triveni Turbine Ltd. at Bangalore and the allegation of the complainant that the alleged breakdown occurred due to heavy vibrations and due to fluctuation in voltage and entry of foreign material in the system is not true. The complainant did not keep the machine available to the surveyor and though an entry of foreign particle is mentioned no such item was detected or derived and specified in the manufacturer’s letter dated 04-9-2012 and no recorded load fluctuations data was produced by the maintenance staff of the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant basing on the terms and conditions of the policy, survey and investigator’s report and as the complainant violated the terms of the policy and lifted the turbine to the manufacturers premises without consent from the insurance company and the alleged breakdown of the turbine is not due to voltage fluctuation or an entry of foreign particle into the turbine but the alleged breakdown was due to no overhauling since July, 2009 and due to wear and tear and therefore the complainant is not entitled to the amounts claimed.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got filed additional affidavit of his Managing Director, Mr.N.Venkata Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. As against that evidence, on behalf of the opposite parties, evidence affidavits of Mr. K.Prakash Rao Regional Manager, Mr.Subhash Garg, Engineer and Licensed surveyor and loss Assessor and Mr.M.S.Prasad Loss Assessor and Panel Investigator were filed and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
We heard the counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and we perused the entire material placed on record by both the parties including written arguments.
The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as contended by the opposite parties?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Under this point, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant is a company under the Companies Act originated for running business for profit, as such, the complaint is not maintainable under law.
In fact in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6337 OF 2001 in United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Kantika Colour Lab . & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at para 19 of its judgement as under:
“Contracts of Insurance are generally in the nature of contracts of indemnity. Except in the case of contracts of Life Insurance, personal accident and sickness or contracts of contingency insurance, all other contracts of insurance entitle the assured for the reimbursement of actual loss that is proved to have been suffered by him…….”
In view of the above and in view of the settled proposition of law that availing of insurance services by firm or company is not hiring services for commercial purpose because insurance is indemnification of future loss whenever it is caused and insurance policy is not taken for making profit. the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant is a company under the Companies Act as is running business for profits is not acceptable. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
Point Nos.ii & iii: It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties (1 & 2) insurance company issued the “Machinery breakdown insurance policy” bearing No.151102/44/11/51/30000023 for the period from 31-12-2011 to 30-12-2012 for covering the power plant (unit II) at Jegurupadu, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District for an amount of Rs.3,23,00,000/- in favour of the complainant company, which paid a premium of Rs.2,00,791/- vide Ex.A1, policy.
The contention of the complainant that on 08-08-2012 at about 10.30 am there were heavy vibrations and abnormal sounds and the turbine tripped and breakdown occurred and the same was informed to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted a claim form, Ex.A7, for loss of Rs.52,73,610/-. Basing on Ex.A4/B4, investigator’s report, dated 21-3-2013, the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on 02-4-2013 stating that the breakdown of the turbine is not due to voltage/fluctuations or a foreign particle entering into the turbine but as no overhaul of turbine was done since the year 2009 and the breakdown was due to normal wear and tear only and it was also alleged that the complainant removed the turbine without their permission from Jegurupadu factory to Bangalore in violation of the conditions of the policy, without considering the representation of the complainant vide Ex.A6 dated 19-10-2012 to the effect that the breakdown of 4 MW Turbine was not due to non overhauling since 2009 and that the breakdown was not due to normal wear and tear, that the overhauling of the turbine will not be carried as per the age, but it will be carried out as per the running hours of the turbine and that the overhauling generally will be done for every alternative 3 years if it runs 100% continuously but the subject turbine ran sparingly.
On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that soon after receipt of the information from the complainant about the alleged break down of the turbine on 08-8-2012, they appointed a surveyor, by name, Garg & company, and the said surveyor after detailed survey, submitted the survey report dated 26-12-2012 (Ex.B3). Subsequently the opposite parties insurance company entrusted the investigation to one Mr.M.S.Prasad, technical person to enquire into the facts of the case as well as the reasons for the alleged breakdown of the turbine on 08-8-2012. The said investigator went to the insured premises for investigation and filed a detailed investigation report dated 21-3-2013 (Ex.B4) stating that the breakdown was due to wear and tear of the turbine for not overhauling since last overhauling that took place during June/July, 2009 and that the turbine was subjected for continuous work for 3 years till breakdown occurred in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy in not immediately notifying the company by telephone or telegram as well as in writing, giving an indication as to the nature and extent of loss or damage; and in not preserving the damaged or defective parts and made them available for inspection by an official or surveyor of the company as the complainant shifted the turbine in question from the plant at Jegurupadu to M/s.Triveny Turbine Ltd., premises at Bangalore. If the insured fails to comply with the requirements of the terms and conditions of the policy, the company shall be free from all liability or loss or damage caused by any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, the opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, purely basing on the terms and conditions of the policy and basing on the survey report and investigation report. The complainant is therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint.
From the contentions of both the parties, there can be no dispute that on 08-8-2012 at about 10-30 a.m the turbine tipped and breakdown occurred due to heavy vibrations and abnormal sounds. The said fact is also proved by evidence affidavit of the complainant. In fact the opposite parties have also not seriously disputed the said fact. Thus the complainant established that the broke down of the turbine occurred on 08-8-2012, while the machine was functioning.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant has submitted a claim form for loss of Rs.52,73,610/- vide Ex.A7 to the opposite parties, insurance company and that the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.A5, the copy of the letter dated 02-4-2013. As seen from Ex.A5, the claim of the complainant was repudiated basing on the reports of the surveyor and the investigator for violation of the terms and conditions as under:
- The complainant has not intimated about the occurrence of loss immediately to their company
- The breakdown caused to the turbine is not due to voltage/fluctuations or a foreign particle entering into the turbine as claimed by the complainant, no overhaul of the turbine was done since the year 2009 (provision No.3) and the breakdown is due to normal wear and tear only.
- The complainant had removed the turbine without prior permission from the opposite parties from his factory premises at Jegurupadu to Bangalore which is also a violation of the conditions of the policy.
Regarding the first ground for repudiation is concerned, the case of the complainant is that immediately after the machinery break down, the Managing Director of the complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties on 08-8-2012 itself. The complainant has stated in the complaint as well as in his evidence affidavit that soon after the breakdown of the machinery, he informed the same to the opposite parties on the same day i.e. 08-8-2012. In support of his contention the complainant filed the copy of the letter dated 08-8-2012 along with other documents with the complaint. The said letter is addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 informing that on that day morning i.e. on 08-8-2012 their 4 MW turbine tripped at their power plant at 10.30 am due to heavy vibrations. The turbine details are given in the said letter. Under this letter the complainant requested the insurance company to send their surveyor immediately for inspection. Except a bald contention in the written version and evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant violated the condition of the policy that immediately after the event, notify the insurance company by telephone or telegram as well as in writing giving an indication as to the nature and extent of loss or damage, they have not adduced any evidence to show that they raised the same plea prior to the repudiation of the claim. If really the opposite parties have not received the above referred letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties, the opposite parties would have raised the said plea by way of correspondence with the complainant prior to the repudiation letter. In fact, the surveyor/loss assessor has not stated anything in his report vide Ex.A3 that he could not assess the loss due to violation of the above said condition of the policy. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has established that soon after the breakdown of the machine, the complainant informed the opposite parties about the same on 08-8-2012 itself. Therefore, there is no violation of the above said condition of the policy. Even if there is any such violation, that is no material to repudiate the claim of the complainant, especially when the surveyor who examined the damaged parts after the breakdown has not expressed that he could not assess the loss due to the violation of the above said condition.
Now coming to the second ground of the repudiation, it is the case of the opposite parties that as per the terms and conditions of the policy at page 10 at condition No.3, “Inspection of Turbines and Turbo Generators”, All Mechanical and electrical parts of any steam turbine, gas turbine or generator upto 30,000 KW shall be inspected and overhauled thoroughly under the supervision of makers representatives in a completely opened up state atleast every two years, for turbines or generators exceeding 30,000 KW every 4 years, The overhauling shall take place after 32000 hours of operation and a copy of the report issued by makers representative on such inspection and overhauling shall be furnished to the company immediately after the work has been carried out.
Basing on the above mentioned condition and the records produced before him by the staff of the complainant, the investigator, Mr.M.S.Prasad, in his report, Ex.B4, has observed that the turbine was overhauled during June/July, 2009 and appeared, it was subjected for continuous work and haulted working since not overhauled until 3 years till breakdown occurred and that as per the policy issued, the 4000 KW turbine has to be overhauled for atleast every 2 years and in this present case, the turbine is allowed to work continuously with overdue overhauling period and came to a conclusion that due to lack of periodical maintenance resulted in wear and tear of turbine intentionally and the turbine broke down of its working on 08-8-2012 with heavy vibration, hence as such the breakdown of the turbine was due to wear and tear only.
It is true that the turbine was overhauled during June or July, 2009. As per the complaint, the case of the complainant is that the overhauling of the turbine will not be carried as per the age, but it will be carried out as per the running hours of the turbine and that the overhauling generally will be done for every alternate 3 years if it runs 100% continuously but the subject turbine ran sparingly due to the reasons mentioned in their letter dated 06-6-2013 addressed to the OP 1. The said letter is received by the Divisional Manager of OP1 on 07-6-2013. In the said letter the reasons given are:
- The turbine was stopped for more than six months as our steam boiler was converted from Travelling grate to fluidized bed combustion during April 2011 to September, 2011. The permission letter from the Director of Boilers is enclosed for your reference.
- The Turbine was not run for some time due to shortage of fuel.
- The Turbine was also not run for some time due to paper Machine shutdown jobs as it is captive power plant. If the paper machine does not run the Turbine also does not run as there is no export of power to Grid.
Thus the turbine ran only for 1 year 10 months since November, 2009 to August 2012 which is well within the limits of overhauling due date.
In order to prove their above contention, besides evidence affidavit, the complainant filed the letter dated 06-6-2013 with the endorsement of the Divisional Manager of OP 1 which contained in the bunch of documents which were filed along with the complaint. The complainant has also filed the month wise statement of stoppage hours of the 4 MW turbine and the power generation particulars duly signed by Deputy Electrical Inspector of Rajahmundry which contained in the above said bunch of documents. The copy of the said particulars were submitted to OP1 along with the abovesaid letter dated 06-6-2013. The said particulars established that the total time , the turbine ran is 1 year 10 months since October, 2009 to August, 2012. Therefore, the assumption of the investigator that the turbine was subjected for continuous work from June/July 2009 when the turbine was overhauled cannot be accepted, especially in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Further, in Ex.A3, survey report, the surveyor, at the beginning of the last page of his report has categorically stated that they referred log books/sheet and machine operations details, it is found that the machines are being maintained well and it is under regular check by the insured’s well qualified maintenance staff. In view of the categorical finding of the surveyor and the above discussed evidence adduced by the complainant, we are not inclined to accept the observation of the investigator in the subsequent report vide Ex.A4 that the complainant has not maintained the turbine properly and that the turbine broke down was due to lack of periodical maintenance.
The specific case of the complainant is that either due to load fluctuations or entry of foreign particular into the system the damage have been caused. The said case of the complainant has been certified by Triveni Turbines/Manufacturers, through letter dated 04-9-2012 as admitted by the investigator in his report, Ex.A4. The investigator has not given cogent reasons for rejecting the said cause for the breakdown. The opposite parties have not filed any documents in support of Ex.A4, investigator report.
For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any violation of the condition No.3 of the policy referred to above. Even if there is any such violation, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that the alleged violation is material to repudiate the claim of the complainant and that the break down of the turbine on 08-8-2012 is due to wear and tear for lack of periodical maintenance, especially in view of the observation of the loss assessor/surveyor in Ex.A3, report. In Ex.A3 report, the loss assessor came to the conclusion “the nature of the accident is such that it can be attributed to unbalancing of shaft due to attack from rivet that has fallen. To control the accident was beyond the reach of operator of insured. However, quick action to save the turbine from further damage. To our observations, there is no breach of policy and claim is admissible”. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the broke down of the turbine was due to the causes pleaded by the complainant and not due to wear and tear, due to lack of proper periodical maintenance as contended by the opposite parties.
In view of our above finding, the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy.
Now the question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.52,73,610/- along with interest from 03-4-2013 i.e. the date of repudiation and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- totaling to Rs.57,73,610/-. It is an undisputed fact that after the breakdown , the damaged parts of the turbine were taken to the manufacturer, M/s Triveni Turbines Ltd., for repairs and that the damaged parts were repaired by the said manufacturer. The complainant has filed Ex.A9 to A16 invoices and Ex.A17 bunch of Axis bank cyber receipts, 7 in number to prove that he has incurred Rs.52,73,610/-. The opposite parties have not disputed Exs.A1 to A17. In fact in Ex.A4, investigation report, the investigator at page 3 of his report has categorically stated “ it is also claimed by the insured that an amount of Rs.44,47,638/- were spent/paid against the invoices raised by the manufacturers restored the 4 MW (4000 KW) turbine. It is found true that the insured incurred such expenditure apart from the travelling lodging, boarding etc. expenditures of the company engineers who stayed at Rajahmundry and at Jegurupadu while the turbine was disassembled and later restored” . The loss assessor under Ex.A3 report assessed the net loss at Rs.28,54,290-50 ps. deducted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards salvage and then he arrived at loss payable at Rs.25,54,290-50ps. He assessed net loss at Rs.19,19,076.97ps. which is rounded off to Rs.19,19,077 after application of average clause. Under the head average clause, the loss assessor explained that he applied average clause since insurance is not adequate. He has stated under the head average clause which is as follows:
“As per insurance policy copy the sum insured for an individual machine is Rs.55,00,000.00. We have obtained quotation of new turbine from the same manufacturer. As per the quotation, the value of new turbine of similar configuration is for Rs.69,77,000 + 2% VAT i.e. Rs.71,16,540-00. The insurance is not adequate. So, it invites average clause.
A perusal of the insurance policy made it clear that there is no clause like average clause in the policy. Therefore, the assessment of the loss by the loss assessor applying the average clause is not correct. In this case admittedly the sum insured under the policy regarding turbine is Rs.55,00,000/-. The complainant in this case claimed a sum of Rs.52,73,610/-. As stated above, the investigator concurred with the claim of the complainant in his report, Ex.A4. In Ex.A3 report, in the last para, the loss assessor has categorically stated that the repairer i.e. Triveni Turbines Ltd., has given the test results after repairs and assembling, that this test run carried out at a specific load and observed for 48 hours and that operation is perfect.
In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.49,73,610/- (Rs.52,73,610/- - Rs.3,00,000/- towards salvage) to the complainant towards the loss sustained by him due to breakdown of the turbine along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 02-4-2013 since we are awarding interest, it is not desirable to direct the opposite parties to pay any amount towards compensation. Hence these two points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed, in part, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.49,73,610/- to the complainant towards the loss sustained by him due to breakdown of the turbine along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 02-4-2013 till the date of realization, the remaining claims of the complainant are dismissed. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above said order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
sd/-MEMBER.
sd/-MEMBER.
Jm
Dt.27-1-2015
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
Witnesses examined
For complainant: For opp.parties:
1.Evidence affidavit & Addl. 1.Mr.K.V.Narayana Rao, Regional
Affidavit of Mr.N.Venkata Manager filed as RW1
2. Mr.Subhash Garg, Engineer and
Reddy filed on behalf of Licensed surveyor and loss
complainant Assessor filed as RW2
3.Mr.M.S.Prasad, Loss Assessor
And Panel Investigator filed as
RW3.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Machinery break down insurance Policy
No.151102/44/11/51/30000023
Ex.A2 Letter of O.P.No.2 to the complainant dated 02-7-2013
Ex.A3 Survey Report of Garg and company dated 26-12-2012.
Ex.A4 Investigation Report of Mr.M.S.Prasad dt . 21.03.2013
Ex.A5 Repudiation Letter dt 02.04.2013
Ex.A6 Letter of complainant to opposite party 1 dt 19.10.2012
Ex.A7 Claim Form
Ex.A8 Bunch of Bills, letters & Proof of payment made to Triveni Turbine Ltd
Ex.A9 Invoice No. 1000016488, dated 26.09.2012 for Rs. 29,336/-
Ex.A10 Invoice No. 1000016481, dated 26.09.2012 for Rs. 2,29,445/-
Ex.A11 Invoice No. 1000016486, dated 26.09.2012 for Rs. 23,38,718/-
Ex.A12 Invoice No. 1000016487, dated 26.09.2012 for Rs. 6,83,283/-
Ex.A13 Invoice No. 1000016489, dated 26.09.2012 for Rs. 6,94,018/-
Ex.A14 Invoice No. 1000016557, dated 04.10.2012 for Rs. 38,417/-
Ex.A15 Invoice No. 3000005913, dated 20.10.2012 for Rs. 4,21,350/-
Ex.A16 Invoice No. 1000016861, dated 07.11.2012 for Rs. 4,964/-
Ex.A17 Bunch of Axis Bank Cyber Receipts (7 Nos.)
Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Machinery Break down Insurance Policy
No. 151102/44/11/51/300000023 from 31.12.2011 to 30.12.2012 along with terms and conditions
Ex.B2 claim Note, dt. 01.04.2013.
Ex.B3 Survey Report, dt 26.12.2012
Ex.B4 Investigation Report, dated 21.03.2013
sd./ MEMBER.
Jm sd/- MEMBER.
Dt.27-1-2015
