Haryana

StateCommission

CC/79/2014

Puri Oills Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram Ins. co. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.79 of 2014

                                             Date of Institution: 07.08.2014

          Date of Decision: 23.02.2017

 

Pujri Oil Mills Private Limited, through its authorized officer Sh.Rajesh Keshry, Company Secretary, Puri Oil Mills Private Limited, Registered office 302, Jyoti Shikhar, 8, district Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Rider House, Ground & First Floor, Plot No.136, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002.

2.      Prudent Insurance Brokers Private Limited through its President, 462/- Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon-122016.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                              Mr.R.K.Bashomboo, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                             Mr. A.S.Likhari, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that Hydro Power Project was installed by it on Yamuna Augmentation Canal at village Tusang  Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, Haryana. Turbine manufactured by M/s B Fouress (P) Ltd. (In short “BFPL”) and vertical Kaplan turbines were used.  The runner  of turbine was provided with four runner blades to control load on turbine  which can be adjusted by means of Hydraulic system. The project was commissioned on 17.06.2011 and handed over by M/s B Fouress (P) Ltd., Bangalore after 72 hours of Trial Run. The project was synchronized with UHBNL Grid System, Garhi Birbal.  Machinery Breakdown Insurance policy was obtained from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 for sum assured of Rs.6.1 crore valid from 28.06.2011 to 27.06.2012.  It also obtained Machinery Loss of Profit Insurance (In short “MLOP”) output basis from O.P.No.1 for sum insured of Rs.3.0 crores for 12 months from 28.06.2011 to 27.06.2012.  The cover note was issued  at that time but terms and conditions were not settled prior to 24.11.2011.  The machinery broke down on  12.09.2011, but, policy was issued on 24.11.2011. In the month of August, 2011 problem was noticed in Runner Blade (turbine) of Unit No.1 of 1.4 M.W. Hydro Power Project and matter was discussed with BFPL. A meeting was also held with their officials and it was decided on 22.08.2011 to dismantle hub assembly for rectifying problem. In the last meeting dated  24.08.2011 it was found that hub body was jammed and as per advise of manufacturer i.e. BFPL dismantling of hub assembly was required.  As the project was new and was commissioned only two months before this problem, it was decided to run turbine, to minimize losses which continued till 12.09.2011. It was brought to notice of BFPL that unit was commissioned in the month of June 2011 but has started giving problem within two months whereas life span of one unit was 35 years. Vide letter dated 04.04.2011 it was informed by  BFPL that problem could be due to silt in canal. They promised to provide engineering supervision free of cost.  On 12.09.2011 at about 1.00 P.M. it was found that it was not possible to run unit NO.1 as blades of runner of turbine were struck. Engineers of BFPL Checked the problem and advised dismantling of turbine. As per their request Irrigation Department lowered water level in canal due to which unit No.2 also tripped.  Generator and gear box of turbine were dismantled and removed from their foundations. Hub assembly of runner could not be dismantled at site and was sent to workshop at  Yamuna Nagar for repairs. After repairs necessary adjustments were done. Rs.3,30,900/- were paid  on account of labour charges for dismantling of generator, gear box etc.  The loss of Rs.32.90 lacs was also suffered due to break down of the units.  O.Ps. appointed R.L.Aggarwal as a surveyor and he submitted his report dated 28.08.2012. It’s claim was repudiated by O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 04.10.2012 without any reasonable cause, so O.Ps. be directed to pay the following relief:-

“A.     The opposite parties be directed to indemnify loss of Rs.36,20,900/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of loss till the date of realization.

B.      Further, the opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for inconvenience, harassment, discomfort, disappointment, mental agony and deficiency in service.

C.      Still further the opposite parties be burdened with Punitive damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.

D.      Exemplary costs of Rs.55,000/- be awarded to the complainant and.”

2.      O.Ps. filed separate replies.  O.P.No.1 alleged that there is no deficiency in service on it’s part. Complainant has cooked up a story to get compensation.  It is admitted in Para Nos.8 to 10 of complaint that there were problems since very beginning in running project. Even otherwise despite advise dated 22.08.201 to dismantle  Hydro plant, complainant  operated turbine till 12.09.2011. In this way complainant violated condition No.5 of policy which is as under:-

                   “Obligations of the insured:

1. The insured shall take all  reasonable steps to maintain the insured property in efficiency working order and to ensure that no item is habitually or intentionally overloaded. The insured shall fully observe the manufacturers’ instructions for operating, inspection and overhaul as well as Government, Statutory Municipal and all other binding regulations in force concerning the operation and maintenance of the insured plant and machinery.”

Even otherwise there was no breakdown  of the machinery.  Complainant has miserably failed to show the problem and that the same was covered by the policy. 

3.      It was alleged by O.P.No.2 that the present complaint is not covered by the definition of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (In short “Act”).  There is no laxity on it’s part and the complaint is not maintainable.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      Both the parties lead their evidence.  Arguments heard. File perused.

5.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that in the month of August 2011, turbine No.1 developed some snag and engineers of BFPL advised to dismantle hub assembly because it was not possible to repair before dismantling, which is clear from perusal of letter dated 04.09.2011 Ex.P-9.  Thereafter hub assembly of Unit No.1 was dismantled and got repaired. Rs.3,30,900/- was spent on repairs.  For this purpose water level  of canal was decreased due to which second unit also tripped. The project remained closed from 12.09.2011, whereas this project was commissioned on 17.06.2011. Complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.32.90 lacs. Claim form Ex.P-6 was submitted, but, the same was repudiated by the O.Ps. as per letter dated 10.04.2012, without any reasons, copy of which is EX.P-13. So O.Ps. be directed to pay compensation as prayed for.

6.      This argument is devoid of any force.  O.P.No.1 has repudiated claim on the following grounds:-

“We are now in receipt of survey report confirming that silt in the canal carried with water to the turbine was getting stuck in hub assembly of turbine, which was a gradually developing phenomenon and no breakdown has happened as covered in machinery breakdown insurance policy.

In this regard we wish to highlight policy exclusion reading as:-

Gradually developing flaws, defects, cracks or partial fractures in any part not necessitating immediate stoppage although at some future time repair or renewal of the parts affected may be necessary.

Also there were various inconsistencies in statement/documents submitted.

Accordingly present claim is falling outside ambit of machinery breakdown policy.”

7.      It shows that the claim was repudiated because there was no defect in the machinery of the project.  Bill Ex.R-5 issued by Hi-Tech Engineering (Co.) shows that only labour charges for dismantling of generator, gear box and turbine units, turbine hug assembly, rectifying the defects and re-assembly  were charged and not for  replacement of any part.  It is no-where mentioned therein that any part of the turbine were damaged and replaced. This amount was paid only as labour charges. For ready reference  Ex.R-5 is reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Description	Quantity	Rate per Rs.      P.	Amount Rs.        P.
1	Labour charges for dismantling of Generator, Gear Box & turbine units, turbine hub assembly, rectifying the defects and re-assembly	01/15	3,00,000/-	3,00,000=00

 

It was bounden duty of the complainant to prove that any part of turbine was changed. When Rajesh Kumar Keshry entered witness box on behalf of complainant it was stated by  him that he cannot tell the problem and only expert can tell. When Sandeep Singh was examined, he stated that only manufacturer can tell what was the fault. It was admitted by the witness that during rainy season silt comes in the water. Turbine might have jammed due to the excessive silt as advised by BFPL and alleged in para No.8 of the complaint.  When there was no defect in any part, it cannot be opined that O.Ps. are liable to pay any compensation. Even as per pleadings of complainant the turbine was running from 22.08.2011 to 12.09.2011 despite advise of BFPL.  Had there been major problem machine would have stopped working there and then. Complainant has miserably failed to prove that they suffered loss on account of failure of machinery and O.ps. are liable to pay the same. Resultantly complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

February 27th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.