ORDER

A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT)

1.   The Complainant in order to establish a manufacturing unit at village Dochi in District Solan, Himachal Pradesh availed of a credit facility from the Bank of Baroda, Opposite Party No. – 3, and for raising the constructions also took a policy from the Opposite Party No.-1 from the National Insurance Company which is a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy for protecting any loss relating to the building in the course of construction. The sum insured was Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The policy along with the risk covered and the description of the property is Annexure – 6 to this Complaint.

2.   It is alleged that on the intervening night of 16^th and 17^th of July, 2015 a flash flood due to incessant rains resulted in a violent over flowing of the banks of the stream nearby the constructions caused heavy damage to the Pre Engineered Building (PEB) material kept at the site that was washed away by the floods. It is also alleged that the building and the structure that was coming up was also submerged and as such, this loss, which occurred during the heavy rainfall to the construction of the building was liable to be indemnified in terms of the said policy that was issued on 10.06.2015 and was effective for the period 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2016.

3.   It is urged that the Complainant submitted a claim for the loss with the Opposite Party No.-1 who appointed a surveyor namely Opposite Party No.-2, which remained pending when ultimately vide letter dated 15.10.2015, the Complainant was informed that the policy does not cover either the raw material stored at the site for construction or the maintenance of temporary roads as well as land development and hence the damage does not call for any reimbursement. This information was based on the initial Survey Report of the Surveyor.

4.   The Complainant upon receiving the aforesaid message submitted his documents and requested for the reimbursement as the loss suffered covered under the policy. The Surveyor submitted its final report on 03.11.2015 stating therein that the items claimed by the insured did not form a part of the building under the course of constructions and therefore do not fall under the purview of the policy. The claim was therefore repudiated by the Insurance Company vide communication dated 03.11.2015 which is extracted here as under:

                   “Dear Sir,

                This is in reference to your grievance mentioned below. In this regards we are again to inform you that matter has been placed with the higher authorities. After having advice from our higher authorities we are again to inform you that our stand in this claim is the same as informed to you vide our earlier mail dated 16/11/2015. As the damages claimed by you does not fall within in the preview of the policy.

                This is for your kind information please.

                Thanks”

5. Aggrieved the present Complaint has been filed contending that the policy clearly covered the entire stock of raw material to be utilized for the construction of the building, including the PEB material. It is therefore urged that the stand taken by the Insurance Company for denying the claim was erroneous.
6. The Written Version has been filed annexing along therewith the entire Surveyor Report and it is urged that the claim cannot be accepted inasmuch as the word, ‘stock’ occurring under the heading code insurance details does not indicate the code for covering the stocks. The column categorically indicates the premium paid for risk Code No.- 25 which is more clarified under heading of risk covered where the description of the risk is “building in course of construction”. The risk code mentioned is 25 and it is in accordance with the same that the rate applicable has also been indicated in the same column in description of risk. It is therefore submitted that by no stretch of imagination the policy covers the risk of any raw material / stocks as alleged by the Complainant.
7. It is further submitted that the column of sum insured indicates the description of property as “building” and it nowhere indicates coverage of raw material. The construction had already commenced and had reached a particular stage which is also evident from the photographs appended with the Complaint. The Surveyor has also mentioned the standing construction with a further recital that the building which was being constructed might have witnessed some flooding but at the time of survey no part of the building which is in existence was either found to be affected by the floods nor there was any indication of any damage or loss caused to the construction already raised.
8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company emphasized that the policy is for the building which had commenced and has been constructed. It is not for the raw material which may have been stocked to be utilized for the construction.
9. It is further submitted that the insurance guidelines for the coverage which have been issued and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Complainant categorically segregate buildings and stocks. There is nothing on record to indicate that there would be an automatic claim available in respect of raw material which is not covered under the policy.
10. Learned Counsel emphasizes that as a matter of fact the raw material might have been kept at the site including the PEB material that may be belonging to the person or contractor carrying out the construction, who continues to be the owner of the same so long it is not actually utilized for raising the building. Consequently in the absence of any proof that the building material or raw material kept at the site belonged to the Complainant, there cannot be any inference of any loss so as to bring it within the fold of the terms of the policy i.e. building in the course of the construction. It is urged that it is quite possible that the construction might have been carried out by another contractor who owned the raw material.
11. The Complainant for the purpose of the coverage of insurance would be entitled to any indemnification for loss caused to the building under construction and not to the raw materials that may have been stacked on the land where the building is situated, as the raw material does not form part of the actual construction so long as it is not actually utilized and consumed for the construction.
12. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the policy also covers stocks, which also includes raw materials stored at the site, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the policy only covers the risk of the building in course of construction. The risk column categorically mentions only the building and not the stocks. The submission that the word ‘stocks’ also occurs in the column meant for indicating codes is not the column for coverage of the risk. The risk is clearly defined to be a “building in the course of construction”. The said phrase admits of no ambiguity and there is no scope for applying the contra proferentem rule herein as every building in the course of construction has to utilize some raw material, but that is not the risk covered.
13. It is the erected building and completed structure to whatever stage during the course of construction which is the risk covered. It is absolutely clear that the risk does not cover stored raw material which may have to be utilized during the course of construction. The policy and the coverage are sufficiently clear and transparent on that count and there is no scope for reading the words “raw material stored” in the phrase of the risk covered which on any interpretation is a completed stage of building in the course of construction. It is the building which is insured and not the stored raw material.
14. The claim with regard to the Pre Engineered Building (PEB) material or any other raw material kept at the site therefore if lost cannot be indemnified through a claim under the policy in question.
15. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party that it is quite possible that the construction work might have been carried out by a Contractor who in fact may be the owner of the material. The material owned by a Contractor or even by the Complainant is not the coverage under the policy. Hence the contention that the raw material which was stored, and not utilized for constructions, cannot be indemnified.

16.       So far as the building is concerned no material or evidence has been brought on record to contradict the survey report which narrates that no part of the constructed building that was in existence at the time of survey was either affected or had been damaged. In the absence of any such evidence of any loss caused to the constructions raised at the site, no case is made out for indemnification. The Complaint lacks merits and the same is accordingly rejected.