Raj Rani Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. CC 01/2021

11.01.2021 Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for complainant.

Arguments on admission of complaint heard. This order of ours shall dispose of the present complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended up to date. 

2. In the present complaint the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No. 2270441334 for the period from 24.6.2020 to 23.06.2021 for Fire and Special Perils for sum insured of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Burglary for sum insured of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Further, on 11.9.2020 there was a short circuit in the said unit causing fire and a transformer and stocks were burnt and damaged. The intimation was given to the opposite party on 13.9.2020 and complainant also written a letter dated 21.9.2020 to the opposite party to settle the claim but on 5.11.2020 the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant alleging that the reported loss does not fall under policy purview inspite of fact that fire is covered under the said policy. 

3. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant. In letter dated 13.9.2020 which was written by the complainant to the opposite party it is admitted that due to short circuit in plant and causes of that blaster got destroyed. Further, in letter dated 21.9.2020 written by the complainant to the official of the opposite party again it is admitted that there was a fire in the unit due to short circuit which was caused loss to the wiring, MCB and machinery. In response to letter dated 21.9.2020 the official of opposite party sent an email dated 22.9.2020 to the complainant in which he mentioned that on examining the damage caused they observed the items of loss (as claimed) to be damaged due to heavy voltage fluctuations/surge and thus would fall under the definition of breakdown and not fire. There was direct damage to any of the claimed items due to fire which had remained confined only to the electric panel damaging a few MCB's only. For the same reason, they had requested the complainant to provide a copy of any machinery breakdown policy in case it was taken by the complainant, since the type of damage sustained was a breakdown as a result of voltage fluctuation and would not fall under coverage of a Fire policy. Further, another official of the opposite party sent an email dated 5.11.2020 to the complainant in which he mentioned that the policy preferred by the complainant is SFSP (Standard fire special perils policy) which covers names perils as mentioned.-

1. Fire

2. Lightning

3. Explosion/Implosion

4. Aircraft Damage

5. Riot, Strike and Malicious Damage

6. Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation Loss, destruction or damage directly caused by Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood or Inundation.

7. Impact Damage

8. Subsidence and Landslide including Rock slide

9. Bursting and/or overflowing of Water Tanks, Apparatus and Pipes

10. Missile Testing operations

11. Leakage from Automatic Sprinkler Installations

12. Bush Fire

The official of the opposite party further mentioned that there is no above mentioned perils operated and also policy preferred by the complainant does not have MBD coverage. Moreover, please refer below mentioned general exclusion under Fire Policy.-

“2.3.4 Loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting arising from or occasioned by over-running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage or electricity from whatever cause (Lightning included) provided that this Exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fittings which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up.

4. In view of the admission of the complainant in his various letters mentioned above and terms and conditions of the policy mentioned above, it is crystal clear on the file that loss due to fire from voltage fluctuation is not covered under the insurance policy. As the loss of the complainant is not covered under the policy so in our view he is not entitled for any claim. There is no need to send notice to the opposite party. Accordingly, we did not admit his complaint and present complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

Dated: 11.01.2021

 

 

Member President

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) (Kuljit Singh)