1.      Heard Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for the respondent.

2.      The above appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 10.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.183 of 2009 whereby the complaint has been dismissed and repudiation of insurance claim has been upheld.

3.      M/s. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. filed Complaint Case No.183 of 2009 for allowing the complaint and in consequence to allow the insurance claim arising out of fire incident dated 28.10.2008. It has been stated that the complainant was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development of Real Estate. The complainant was implementing a Housing Project at Manimajra, Chandigarh in the name and style of “Marble Arch”. In order to ensure the smooth activities, the complainant used to obtain insurance policy from opposite party to cover any untoward incidents. The complainant obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.11276795 which was valid from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2009 for sum insured of Rs.50/- crores. On 28.10.2008 at about 21:15, the fire broke out at the project site due to fire crackers used in Diwali by the outsiders. The fire incident was immediately informed to the nearest fire service station from where two fire tenders were deputed which could control the fire. The complainant had electrical panels at the site. The fire caused extensive damage to the electrical panels. The complainant informed the Insurer about the fire incident through letter dated 31.10.2008. On which the Insurer appointed Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh for survey and assessment of loss on the same day. The surveyor inspected the spot on 31.10.2008 and found that several electric panels were damaged due to fire. The surveyor made several inquiries and demanded various documents, which were supplied to him. The complainant supplied to the surveyor (i) budgetary summary as on 07.12.2008 showing base budget for the project of Rs.85.05 crores and Rs.34.01 crores had already been incurred on it, (ii) a revised budget of project implementation expenses as on 28.01.2009 showing that Rs.95/- crores were incurred on the project. The surveyor submitted his Final Survey Report dated 17.03.2009 showing that the damaged materials were not covered under the insurance policy. The surveyor assessed the loss to Rs.33.9 lakhs. The Insurer by letter dated 13.03.2009 repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy covers “Building under Construction” while the loss to the electric panel was not covered under the policy. The complainant made a representation dated 14.04.2009 stating that therein “Building under Construction” would include the electrical works also. However, the Insurer vide letter dated 18.04.2009 refused to reconsider the matter on the allegations that the claim was already repudiated. The complaint was filed on 27.04.2009, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurer. 

4.      The respondent filed its written reply and contested the complaint. In the written reply the material facts have not been disputed. It has been stated that in the Cover Note and in Insurance Policy, it has been clearly mentioned that on “Building under Construction” at Manimajra, Chandigarh, was insured. According to the own estimate of the complainant, the total cost of the project was Rs.95/- crores, which included electrical, mechanical, plumbing, landscaping site supervision and administration etc. The insurance was obtained for coverage of Rs.50/- crores. From the estimate, it is proved that only civil works were insured and not the electrical, mechanical plumbing etc. Further loss has occurred on the rear side of the building under construction. That place was not covered under the insurance policy as such the claim was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency in service.

5.      The complainant filed its Rejoinder reply in which the facts stated in the complaint have been reiterated. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of K. Sitaraman. The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence of P.J. Paradhan. Both the parties filed their short synopsis. State Commission after hearing the parties by judgment dated 10.07.2014 held that the insurance policy was in respect of “Building under Construction” and it had not included the electrical panel as such the claim was not covered under the insurance policy. The repudiation of the claim does not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, the complaint has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal has been filed.

6.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the cover note the words “On Building under Construction” at Manimarjra, Chandigarh, including earthquake, fire, shock clause and terrorism cover” have been mentioned. In the insurance policy, “Building under Construction” have been mentioned.  A perusal of Final Survey Report shows that the electrical panels were stored at rear side of the building under construction, in open place and were under the package of polythene, covered with tarpaulins. The date of incident was date of Diwali and some outsiders used crackers which fell on the stock of electrical panels due to which fire was broken out. According to the appellant, total area of super structure was 352288 sq.ft., while the basement area over which the construction was raised, was 98175 sq.ft. On the rear side the sufficient open space was lying in which the electrical panels were stored which were damaged. It is admitted that the damaged electrical panels were not installed in the building rather were stored in open place, i.e. apart from the building under construction. In such circumstances, the repudiation letter as well as order of State Commission holding that the damaged material were not covered under the insurance policy do not suffer from any illegality.

ORDER

          The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.