Date of Filing:26-08-2015
Date of Order: 05-02-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Tuesday, the 5th day of February, 2019
C.C.No.492 /2015
Between
M/s. Apple Polymers,
Plot No.301, H.No.10-2-350/7,
Abj.Indira Nagar Colony, Asif Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500028,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
Sri B.Radha Krishna. ……Complainant
And
- SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,
3rd floor, penumadi Towers, D.No.20-03-124,
Near Leelamahal Circle, Akkarampalle Road,
Yerramitta, Tirupati- 517 501, Chittoor District,
Rep. by its Branch Manager
- SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,
3rd floor, Ozone Commercial Complex,
6-3-669/1, Panjagutta Main Road,
Hyderabad – 500082
Rep. by its Divisional Manager
- State Bank of India,
Chittoor Branch,
Chittoor- 517 127,
Rep. by its Branch Manager ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri V.Gouri Sankara Rao
Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1&2 : Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad
.
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.9,43,036/- as insurance claim and interest there on at 15% P.a from 26-07-2014 to the date of payment and further to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony by not accepting the claim and pay cost of this complaint at Rs.25,000/-.
- The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of Automobile rubber products like Butyl and Natural Rubber Tubes for 2 wheelers and 4 wheelers having established in 2009. It availed finance from opposite party No.3 bank. From the inception opposite party No.3 bank was obtaining insurance policy on behalf of the complainant from New India Insurance Company Ltd. Later for the first time without intimation and consent of the complainant opposite party No.3 bank switched over from the National Insurance Co.Ltd to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.3 bank obtained standard fire and special perils policy (material damage) for a total amount of Rs.1,48,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 company. The period of insurance was from mid night 21-12-2013 to midnight of 20-12-2014. The property covered under the policy is for Rs.11,70,000/- towards buildings, Rs.1,30,000/- towards Plinth & foundation, Rs.87,000/- towards plant & machinery, Rs.3,00,000/-towards furniture and fixtures and Rs.45,00,000/- towards Stocks totaling Rs.1,48,00,000/- in the factory which is situate In Chittor District of Andhra Pradesh. The policy covers risks against fire, STIFI, earth quack and RSMD.
While the matter stood thus a fire accident occurred on the early hours of 26-7-2014 at the factory premises and the said fire accident destroyed 180 KVA Genset and 20HP Screw compressor unit. The fire was extinguished by using Fire extinguishers in the factory and a report was submitted to opposite party No.1 which appointed one Sri AC.Rami Reddy surveyor, Nellore as a surveyor for inspection and assessment of the loss caused in the fire accident. The said surveyor inspected the factory premises on 1-08-2014 and 4-8-2014. He requested the complainant to furnish the brief description of the unit, detailed fire occurrence report, the repairer’s estimate, total cost of the machinery in the unit and fire Brigade report if any and claim form. The complainant obtained a quotation from M/s. Naveen Diesels, Kadapa dt.9-08-2014 at Rs.7,96,119/- for repair 180KVA generator set and another quotation from M/s. Pneumatic Packages, Chennai at Rs.1,46,617/- for repairing 20HP Compressor. The total value of both quotations was Rs.9,42,736/- and they were submitted to insurance surveyor Mr.AC.Rami Reddy on 20-8-2014.
On 4-09-2014 the complainant sent another representation to the surveyor in continuation of earlier letter dated 30-8-2014 informing that there was no possibility for electrical short circuit from Generator set which was in idle condition (stoppage).As per the opinion of the Technical Engineer of M/s.Naveeen Diesels, Kadapa the Generator and compressor caught fire due to short circuit generated from the power batteries connected to the Generator. On 7-10-2014 the opposite party No.2 intimated that the damage caused to 180 KVA Generator set was excluded under the scope of the policy since the fire was due to short circuit of electricity in the Generator set. For the damage caused to 20HP compressor the opposite party No.1 estimated the loss at Rs.87,377/- on the Market value basis. As a special case the opposite party offered for the settlement of the claim at Rs.87,377/- on the market value basis and enclosed discharge voucher with a request to the complainant to return the same duly signing and stamping if acceptable to him.
On 27-10-2014 the complainant submitted a representation to the opposite party No.1 stating that the offer of settlement of Rs.87,377/-towards repair charges of compressor was highly unjust and against the quotations for Rs.9,43,036/- given by an authorized servicing centres and requested opposite party No.1 to take up the matter a fresh. Again on 24-11-2014 the complainant submitted another representation to opposite party No.1 requesting to pay total claim amount and enclosed a technical opinion given by engineers of authorized service centre M/s. Naveen Diesel, Kadapa. Again on 19-1-2015 one more representation was submitted to opposite party No.1 to pay insurance amount as per the opinion of technical’s of engineers are else it will proceed further in the matter through appropriate Forum. On 10-3-2015 once again the opposite party No.2 had sent a discharge voucher for a sum of Rs.87,377/- to the complainant. On 22-4-2015 the complainant submitted another representation to the Claims Department of opposite party No.2 to settle the issue but there was no response.
On 5-6-2015 the opposite party No.1 furnished a copy of survey report dt.10-9-2014 to the complainant which shows that though the surveyor estimated the loss caused to 180 KVA generator set at Rs.7,96,119/- same was not considered since the risk was not covered under the policy, hence claim pertaining to 20HP Generator was only assessed after deducting the salvage, finally assessed the loss at Rs.87,377/- under the rejected relating to 180KVA Generator which is against the Technical opinion given by Engineers of M//s. Naveen Diesels Kadapa.
The action of the opposite party No 1 and 2 in offering a meager amount of Rs.87,377/- as against the quotation of Rs.9,43,036/- and failing to consider the technical opinion of the authorized service center as to the cause of fire, failing to consider various representations of the complainant in right perspective amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. The opposite party No.3 is also equally held responsible for switching over from New India Assurance Company Ltd to opposite party No .1 company for obtaining the policy that to without knowledge and consent of the complainant. Opposite party No.3 bank did not furnish a copy of insurance policy to the complainant till date of fire accident. As such the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions incorporated in the policy obtained from opposite party No.1&2. Thus the service rendered by the opposite party No.3 bank also suffers from deficiency in service. The opposite party No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount. Hence the complaint.
- The opposite party No.3 bank despite service of notice in the complaint did not appear.
- Written version filed by opposite party No.1 is adopted by opposite party No.2 admitting issuance of the policy to the factory of the complainant but denied the rest of the complainant’s version . The defense set out in the written version for opposite party No.1 &2 is that the present complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 company and proposed take insurance policy and in response to the it the company having enquired about the risk financial institutions in respect of the items insured by way of any hypothecation issued the policy on 21-12-2013 and it was in force till 20-12-2014 midnight. The premium for insurance of policy was received from opposite party No.3 bank and not from the complainant. The policy coverage is subject to the terms and conditions and exclusions and was very specific and cannot be enlarged and modified. The opposite party No.2 is not the policy issuing office but the complainant in order to file the complaint at Hyderabad has ingeniously arrayed it for the purpose of creating a cause of action at its convenience. The opposite party No.3 bank was obtaining the insurance policies every year from one insurance company or the other. The complainant is not arraying the opposite party No.3 as a complainant. The opposite party No.3 obtained policy and paid the premium, thus there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1 &2. The claim of the complainant that he did not give consent and have no knowledge about the issuance of policy from one insurance company to other insurance company by opposite party No.3 has no bearing as the complainant was very much aware of the policy taken for which amounts are debited from its account and not challenged the same. It is beyond comprehension for challenging the same for the sake of doing so. The heads and the quantum of coverage, the location and risk occupancy also sum insured are all given only on the basis of the proposal and therefore the complainant not being proposer or the person who has paid the premium and only being the beneficiary has no entitlement to maintain the complaint.
The complainant in order to confuse this Forum has shown two cause of actions into one without understanding that the claim in respect of each loss is to be assessed separately. The entire claim and supporting information and reply to the queries and the documents submitted were all considered by the insurance surveyor A.C.Ram Reddy and he looked into the same and issued a report. The reason explaining the concept of coverage and also assessing the loss in respect of the other equipment by the surveyor clearly proves that he has applied his mind to the terms and conditions, special conditions and exclusions etc in assessing loss and entitlement. The said surveyor also reasserted that 180 KVA Generator set was damaged due to fire, originated due to short circuit of electricity in the generator set itself and claim in respect of it is not payable. The Rama Murthy the managing partner is disowning his statements in order to get over the exclusions and same was also replied with reasons. The opposite party No.1 company has taken an opinion from Professional insurance surveyors and loss assessors, and an independent IRDA licenses surveyor about the occurrence of loss. Since 180 KVA generator fall within the purview of electrical exclusion clause the insurance would be restricted the loss only for compressor. By taking into consideration of policy terms and conditions, special conditions and exclusions with regard to entitlement and also applying its expertise had consented with the opinion of the expert that report of the surveyor, arranged for the discharge voucher and was ready to settle the claim and in spite of it the complainant has chosen to file the present complaint. The opposite party No.2&3 are not proper and necessary parties to the complaint hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties. Hence it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs against the opposite party No.1 &2.
In the enquiry stage for the complainant evidence affidavit of G.Rama Moorthy stated to be its Managing partner is filed and substance of his affidavit is in line with the complaint averments. Through him complainant got exhibited 23 documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party No.1&2 evidence affidavit of one Akhil Kolahari stated to be National Manager , Consumer Litigation is filed and substance of his evidence is line with defense set out in the written version. Through him the policy document is got exhibited by opposite party No.1 &2. The complainant side filed written arguments. For opposite party No.1&2 filed a memo adopting the written version and evidence affidavit filed on their behalf as written arguments. Both sides have submitted oral arguments also.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the rejection of the complainant’s claim by opposite party No.1&2 in respect of 180KVA Generator set amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The first and foremost plea taken by the complainant is from the inception the opposite party No.3 bank from which it availed finance was obtaining insurance policy and renewing it every year from New India Assurance Company Limited but without his knowledge and consent opposite party No.3 bank switched over from National Assurance Company Ltd to opposite party No.1 which fact came to his knowledge only after occurrence of the fire accident in factory. As could be seen from Ex.B1 policy it was issued on 21-12-2013 covering period from midnight 21-12-2013 to midnight of 20-12-2014. The fire accident occurred at the factory of the complainant was on the early hours of 26-7-2014. So for 7 months the complainant is claiming ignorance of the nature the policy and name of the insurer which is quiet unbelievable. Because the premium paid for the obtaining the subject policy was debited from the account of the complainant with the opposite party No.3 bank. Hence it is difficult to believe that complainant could not look into details of the policy for 7 consequence months. Occurring of fire accident on the early hours of 26-7-2014 is not in dispute. As per the clause 7 of this policy in case of fire accident any loss, destruction or any damage caused to electrical machine, apparatus, fixture, or fitting arising from occasioned by over-running excessive pressure, short circuiting arcing, self heating or leakage off electricity form whatever cause 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 setup.
As per the claim submitted by PW1 himself under Ex.A10 the incident occurred due to the internal short circuit in the 180 KVA Generator set but the complainant’s plea is PW1 is not a technical engineer to say that due to short circuit the fire accident was occurred in the generator set. The report of the an independent surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 to assess the damage also shows that the fire accident occurred due to short circuit in the 180KVA Generator set and basing on his report and statement given by PW1 along with his claim the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim in respect of Generator set as it is one of the exclusion under the Ex.B1 policy. The complainant’s stand is as per the opinion given by the engineers of authorized servicing centre M/s. Naveen Diesels there was no possibility of short circuit as it was an idle condition by the date of fire accident. Report of special authorized servicing centre is placed on record but there is no report from the manufacture of the Generator set that Mr.Naveen Diesels is their authorized service providers. That apart as could be seen from Ex.A6 given by said authorized servicing centre the fire accident may be due to the following reasons:
- Battery or battery cables may be shorted with body or each poles. During inspection, batteries & cables were totally burnt off and in burst condition.
- APSEB supply may come reverse from APSEB Panel through change over to the DG set. Interlock provided at APSEB Panel and rare chance to cause the reverse supply
- Natural calamities like Lighting & Thunder
So even the so called authorized servicing centre has not confirmly said the fire accident was not on account of short circuit in generator set. In the report of the independent surveyor appointed under IRDA said that the fire accident was due to short circuit in generator set and it is supported by the earliest intimation given by PW1 as Managing partner of the complainant. As such the opposite party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim in respect of the generator set as it comes under the one of the exclusive of the subject policy. The repudiation of the claim does not amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The insurance company has considered the claim in respect of 20HP compressor and agreed to reimburse the amount required for obtaining repairs as per the estimation made by the independent surveyor. So absolutely there is no material on the record to show that the repudiation of the claim by opposite party No.1&2 in respect of Genset is out of the scope of subject policy. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings in point No.1 that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint.
Point No.3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 5th day of February , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sri Gillella Rama Moorthy Sri Akhil Kulhari
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 is standard fire & special policy (material damage)
Ex.A2 is claim form
Ex.A3 is Cummins field service report dt.3-08-2014
Ex.A4 is AC Ramireddy letter dt.04-08-2014
Ex.A5 is Apple polymers certificate dt.4-08-2014
Ex.A6 is Naveen Diesels letter dt.5-08-2014
Ex.A7 is Naveen Diesels consolidated quotation dt.9-08-2014
Ex.A8 is Pneu pack compressor service report dt.18-08-2014
Ex.A9 is representation dt.20-8-2014
Ex.A10 is description cause of loss/damage dt.30-8-2014
Ex.A11 is Pneumatic packers estimate dt.20-08-2014
Ex.A12 is representation dt.4-09-2014
Ex.A13 is survey report of AC Rami Reddy dt.10-09-2014
ExA14 & A15 are representations
Ex.A16 is letter of opposite party No.2 dt.07-10-2014
Ex.A17 & A18 are representations dt.27-10-2014 and 24-11-2014
Ex.A19 is letter of opposite party No.2 dt.10-03-2015
Ex.A20 is discharge voucher for Rs.87,377/-
Ex.A21 is Naveen Diesels Service invoice dt.31-03-2015
Ex.A22 is Naveen Diesels tax invoice cum delivery note dt.31-03-2015
Ex.A23 is representation dt.22-04-2015
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 is policy document
MEMBER PRESIDENT
