<br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing selling and service of CMM Machine etc., That he for the purpose of the business purchased an imported Carl-Zeiss Model CMM Contura machine and he secured it from Singapore with cost of Rs.51,92,335/-. Then he availed Erection All Risk insurance policy from the Op from 17/05/2006 to 16/07/2006. That the machine arrived in their factory on 15/05/2006, but it could not be installed as certain works were to be completed for installation of the machine. That he had availed policy from the OP to cover risk of Erection All Risk Insurance Policy which was in effect from 11/01/07 to 10/02/2007. That on 01/02/2007 in presence of representative of Carl-Zeiss, the manufacturer of the machine, while the work was in progress by lifting the machine, the machine slipped and landed on the floor with a jerk. That supplier of the machine assessed and reviewed the damages, cost of the machine. That he made a claim to Op for reimbursement of the loss and the Op appointed an independent surveyor to inspect the premises and furnished all necessary documents to Op claiming damages. Then the Ops sent him a repudiation letter to him repudiating his claim by contending that the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy and stated that act of Op in not honouring his claim for reimbursing the loss has not been taken note of and on the contrary rejected the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for a direction to op to pay Rs.18,53,693/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to grant such other reliefs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Op appeared through his advocate has filed version, admitting the issue of policy covering the period from 17/05/2006 to 16/07/2006 which had covered Erection with All Risk. The complainant had not informed them at any time about the damage to the machine until issue is raised before this forum in the form of this complaint. That a surveyor to assess loss by independent surveyor namely one Taneja who was appointed as surveyor by Company Engineer has given his report. OP further relying upon a statement given by the complainant for the purpose of income tax in which, the complainant has submitted a note to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise declaring that the complainant had installed this machineries as on 22/02/2005. That being so it is contended by the Ops that the complainant who had erected long back has taken insurance to cover the damage, has by suppressing fact taken insurance from them. Therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and one M.V.Gudi, Administrative officer of Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copy of insurance Policy, copies of letter sent by the Op to him, with copies of few correspondences they sent to each of them. Op has also produced a copy of the insurance, a copy of terms and conditions, certain photographs of the machine, surveyor report and copies of certain letters exchanged between them. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> On consideration of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Whether the complainant proves that the machine was damaged while moving it for fixing at designated spot and then the machine was slipped fall on the ground suffered damage and that the Op by not reimbursing loss under the policy has caused deficiency in his service. <br /> To what relief the complainant is entitled to? <br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> <br /> Point No.2 : To see the final order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: On considering the contentions of both parties to this complaint and documents produced reveal that the complainant had imported Carl-Zeiss-Model CMM Contura machine at the cost of Rs.51,92,335/- is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Op had issued insurance cover to that machine for reimbursing the loss suffered by the insurer, in the event of any damage caused to the machine at the time of installation. This policy is called fresh Erection All Risk policy which was in force with from 11/01/2007 to 10/02/2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant has claimed that during January 2007, they took up installation of that machine and while commissioning that machine at a suitable place in presence of a representative of the manufacturer and when the machine was lifted with Hydraulic pallet truck from its storage site and when it was being moved to its located place, the machine slipped and landed on the floor with a jerk. Then they saw the machine had suffered damage making it unfit for its needed use. The Op disputing the claim of the complainant regarding the date of installation of the machine stated that the complainant had not taken up installation during February 2007. Op further by inviting our attention to a statement filed by complainant to the Central Exercise Authority in which the complainant had reported stating that machine in question was installed on 22/05/2006 itself. The complainant suppressing that fact took insurance policy with a mala-fide intention of having financial gain. We have perused the installation certificate filed by the complainant to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Exercise dated 30/08/2006 in which the complainant besides mentioning the particulars of the machine which was installed has declared to had installed on 30/08/2006. It further discloses that date of installation of the machine is given as 25/02/2006. This certificate has been prepared on the information given by the complainant to the Central Exercise authority. The complainant has not denied the correctness or genuineness of the certificate. Therefore, we find that the complainant had reported to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Exercise informing them of purchase and installation of the machine. The certificate at the top further shown that imported machine of the complainant has been installed in the premises in which machine was installed. Further at the end of the certificate there is a noting which reads “This certificate is based on the physical verification done by the Excise officers. This certificate is attested by the authorized officers of the complainant in presence of Inspector of Central Excise Range and in presence of a Chartered Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Commissioner of Central Exercise. Here, we emphasis the contents of the certificate which says that physical verification of the machine was done and after confirming the installation at the spot, all these authorities including the authorized signatory of the complainant, after getting themselves conformed of the installation have signed at the bottom of the certificate which goes un saying that the machine was installed on 22/02/06 and not during First February 2007. The complainant has not come up with appropriate reasons as how and why this certificate of installation was given to excise department if the machine was not installed on 22/02/2006. In the absence of reliable reasons in giving such certificate we are left with no option but to accept the self declaration given to excise authority and to hold that installation was not done during the month of February 2007. We, therefore by relying upon this installation certificate or report given to the Central Exercise authority is binding on the complainant. Thus, we do not find any reason for disbelieving it particularly when the complainant himself has produced the certificate without any reservation. With this, all other points canvassed by the complainant in this regard would fail and therefore hold that the complainant has obtained a risks installation policy by suppressing the contents of installation certificate with an ulterior motive of financial gain. In the facts of this case, we hold that the complaint is not bona-fide and the complainant has failed to prove that the machine was damaged in the course of installation during February 2007. As such, the complaint lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed by answering point No.1 in the negative and thus, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 10th February 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />