Haryana

StateCommission

A/1071/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAXMI PAPER BOARD INDUSTRIES - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1071 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.12.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 03.03.2017

 

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai.

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Park Road, Mansa, through its Branch Manager, Kurukshetra. 

          Now both through their authorized signatory, Tarsem Chand Manager, regional office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

….. Appellants

Versus

 

M/s Laxmi Paper Board Industries, Village Kheri Shish Garan, Post Office Gumthala Garhu, District Kurukshetra through its partner Roshan Lal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri  J.P.Nahar, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          As per complainant stock containing paddy straw, paddy husk, wheat straw and lime stone was lying in open at it’s premises. That  was insured for Rs.5,80,000/- valid from 14.11.2008 to 13.11.2009.  On 21.01.2009 fire broke out and stock worth Rs.1,50,000/- was perished.  Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) appointed Rajesh Chabra as surveyor and he assessed loss on the lower side. Rs. 1,10,000/- were spent for removing burnt stock. All the documents were supplied to O.Ps. as and when required.  It’s claim was repudiated on the ground of exclusion clause, which was not applicable, vide letter dated 08.06.2009, Ex.C-33. 

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.P.No.1 that Radhey Sham Garg approved surveyor/loss assessor went to the spot and reported that due to self combustion paddy straw/wheat straw caught fire resulting loss of paddy straw lying in open ground.  As per exclusion clause pertaining to fire, company was not liable to reimburse claim in such cases.  Surveyor’s report was an important document and could  not be ignored as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Pardeep Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. 2009 (1) CPC 166. Roshan Lal Garg, partner of complainant, admitted in his statement before surveyor that fire broke out due to self combustion.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, concealing true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.10.2015 and directed as under:-

“We partly accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.95592/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 31.05.2012 till its realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.  It is already 3.00 P.M.  This appeal relates to year 2015. So there is no necessity to wait any more. Arguments of only learned counsel for appellants are heard. File perused.

6.      Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint on the ground that as per exclusion clause if fire had taken place due to natural heating or spontaneous combustion only then company is not liable to pay compensation, but, in this case fire occurred due to self-combustion which is not covered by exclusion clause. This opinion is not plausible because if we see the meaning of spontaneous combustion it includes self-combustion also.  Spontaneous combustion or spontaneous ignition is a type of combustion which occurs by self-heating (increase in temperature due to exothermic internal reactions) followed by thermal runaway (self heating which rapidly accelerates to high temperatures) and finally autoignition.  It shows that there is no difference in between self combustion and spontaneous combustion. For ready reference the exclusion clause is reproduced as under:-

“1.     Fire

Excluding destruction or damage caused to the property insured by

1. Its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion.”

During investigation by Rajesh Chabra, partner of complainant admitted in letter dated 21.01.2009 that cause of fire was self-combustion. When complainant has admitted this fact it cannot get out of the same. There is no evidence on the file to prove that his signatures were obtained by force or threat.  Fire took place on 21.01.2009 and this letter was also written on 21.01.2009. So there was no time to put pressure upon him.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and granted aforesaid compensation.  Resultantly impugned order dated 12.10.2015 is set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 03rd, 2017       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.