AT HYDERABAD.

C. C. 31/2005

Between:

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

(A Government Company)

Kothagudem

Admn. Office  at Meher Manzil

Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills

Hyderabad.

Rep. by its General Manager (R.G.III)                   ***                         Complainant

                                                                   And

The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office, II Floor, 4-68/6

Ferozguda, Secunderabad-500 001.

Rep. by its  Senior Divisional Manager.      ***                         Opposite Party.    

Counsel for the  Complainant:                   M/s. M. Shankarnarayana

Counsel for the O.P:                                   Mr. M. Jeevan Reddy.
                                                                  

CORAM:                  

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JUNE  TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

This is a complaint filed by Singareni Collieries to recover Rs.  61, 48,676.26 being the amount claimed towards   damage of  a Dozer. 

2)             The case of the complainant in brief is that it had taken insurance policy covering the plant and machinery etc including the dozer for the period from 18.11.1996 to 17.11.1997.  This  is mentioned in the schedule as Sl.No. 3 at page –21.   While so on 4.9.1997 the dozer was caught fire at open cast project-III.   It addressed a letter on 9.9.1997 lodging its claim.    Belatedly by its letter dt. 13.7.2000 the insurance company had sought certain clarifications for which it gave reply on 20.7.2000 mentioning among other things it had got it repaired at a cost of Rs. 42,90,813/-.When  claim was not settled a series of letters were addressed however of no avail.  In a meeting of both officials of both sides the insurance company stated that it had referred the matter to its Head Office.  Finally on 5.11.2001 the claim was repudiated.    There upon it had issued a legal notice followed by complaint  claiming  Rs. 61,48,676.24 together with interest and costs.

3)           The insurance company resisted the case.    While admitting plant and machinery etc are insured for open casting mining for Rs.  246,68,64,774/- wherein the description of the property  has been given along with  their values.   6 Nos. of dozers of BEML make of 32 HP were insured.    It alleged that  Fiat Hitachi make dozer model FD  300 bearing S.No. D-316  which said to be damaged  was not covered under the policy.     At the earliest the complainant had claimed an amount of Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs, and therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction.   It denied the allegation that when the complainant sought time for giving information it has refused to grant  any more time.  It did not file  documents to show  the ownership or value of the dozer  nor extent of damage or the invoice bills  to prove that  it had spent the amount towards repairs around Rs. 42,90,813/-.    The complainant while filing  I.A. No. 929/2004 to condone delay of 333 days made false statements.   Fraud has been played on the Commission by mentioning the cause of action on  5.11.2001  in order to get over the question of limitation.   The letters  would in no way extend the period of limitation.  Both the preliminary survey followed by final survey confirmed  that the dozer was not covered  by the terms of the policy.    Therefore it had rightly repudiated the claim.   Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.  

4)             The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence of   its  Deputy  General Manager (F&A)  Sri CH.V. Narasimha Murthy and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked.

5)           The opposite party did not choose to file evidence, however preferred an appeal before the National Commission,  which in turn had remanded the matter  in order to enable the insurance company  to contest the matter with a direction to this Commission to dispose of the matter  on merits after considering the evidence placed on record  by giving opportunity to both sides. 

6)        The complainant after remand filed the affidavit evidence of  Sri  N. Chandasekhar, Deputy  General Manager  (F&A) and got Ex. A13 marked.   Refuting their evidence the insurance company  filed the affidavit evidence of  Sri  Dinesh Chandra Baheti, Deputy. Manager and got  Exs. B1 to B15 marked. 

7)            The points that arise for consideration are :

1. Whether the machinery ‘dozer’ was covered by insurance policy?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages?  If so  to what amount?
4. To what relief?

8.             At the outset we may state that for the reasons best known the complainant did not file the policy bearing No.  551600/11/96/3300220  The complainant had taken  two policies  commencing for the period  from  17.11.1995 to 16.11.1996.  We may state that two policies bear the same number however differing in last three numbers suffix viz., policy No. 551600/11/96/3300220 and  551600/11/95/3300169.    The complainant alleges that  Hitachi make dozer  was covered by policy No.  551600/11/96/3300220, however it had filed the schedule pertaining to policy No. 551600/11/95/3300169.  The complainant had alleged that  Hitachi make dozer was covered by the policy No.  551600/11/96/3300220 commencing from  18.11.1996 to 17.11.1997.  No doubt the said dozer might have met with accident and there was damage to the dozer.    At the earliest the complainant  has consistently claimed the amounts for the damages of Hitachi dozers  for the policy bearing No. 551600/11/96/3300220 evidenced from  Exs. A1 to A10.   After remand it has filed Ex. A13 schedule appended to the policy bearing No. 551600/11/95/33/00169 alleging  that  the dozers that were insured find a place at S.No. 7.  A perusal of record  shows that there were  no doubt dozers, that were insured,  however manufactured by  BEML of a different company.     There was no mention that  it was manufactured by Hitachi in order to state that they were covered by an insurance policy.      The insurance company filed  Ex. B1 scheduled appended to the policy bearing No. 551600/11/96/3300220  wherein  Annexure-I noted the equipment that was insured with the insurance company.   Sl. No.  2 & 3 pertain  to  D-355 A-3 Dozers  and D-155 A-1 Dozers  respectively manufactured by BEML.      There was no mention  as to the equipment manufactured by Hitachi dozer  Model No. FD 30C bearing No. D-316 for which the complainant claimed the amount.  

 9)              A curious contention was raised that the rounded off portion  in the Annexure  pertains to the dozers in question.  In fact  they do not pertain to any of the equipment.    As against  D-355 A-3 dozers and  D-155 A-1 dozers,   three coloumns pertaining to equipment’s make, Sl.No. and capacity were made mention.  Against it coloumns 1 & 2 were rounded off and   only the capacity of the equipment  was made a mention.  By no stretch of imagination it can be said that  it relate to the claim made towards  Hitachi make dozer.    The insurance company has given Sl. Nos for the dozers.    Hitachi make was given number as D-316.   The very complainant mentioned it.  There is no mention about it in the schedule annexed to the policy.    This machine does not cover the risk issued under the policy.   Obviously, the complainant filed altogether a different policy  of the previous year  or so, in order to recover the amount from the insurance company.    The officers of the complainant,  a government company,   were undoubtedly guilty of laying a false claim for the machinery that was not insured and guilty of introducing a  policy not concerned, obviously to confuse   to make unlawful gain  or to get over any controversy  or enquiry for not insuring the dozer.    Being a government company, it  ought  not to have filed  false complaints for drawing amounts against insurance company.    

 10)            We reiterate that the complainant wantonly  did not file policy bearing No. 551600/11/96/3300220  instead it has filed policy bearing No. 551600/11/95/3300169.     When the insurance company filed Ex. B1 schedule relating to  policy No. 551600/11/96/3300220  the complainant did not contradict that it did not relate to the equipment for which  it is making claim.    The entire discussion is un-necessary  in view of the fact that the complainant could not prove  the equipment that was damaged  was covered by policy No.  551600/11/96/3300220.  The surveyor  Sri  N. V. P. Sharma who was appointed to go into the matter vide his report Ex. B7 opined that  the machinery was not covered by  policy of insurance.   We agree with his report.    We do not see any merits in the complaint.

 11)                 In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 10,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT:                                                    OPPOSITE PARTY

          None                                                                     None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT

Ex A-1             Letters dt :20/24-07-2000 issued by complainant to Op.

Ex A-2             Letter dt : 5-11-2001 issued by  Op  to complainant

Ex A-3             Letter dt 5.8.2001 issued by complainant to  OP

Ex A-4             Letter dt :24.4.2001 issued by complainant to OP

Ex A-5             Letter dt :18.1.2001 issued by complainant to OP

Ex A-6             Letter dt :24.4.2001 issued by complainant to OP

Ex A-7             Letter dt :29.11.1999  issued by complainant to OP

Ex A-8             Letter dt :09.09.1997 issued by complainant to OP

Ex A-9             Regd. post receipt dt :3-4-2004.

Ex A-10           Office copy of legal notice dt :2-4-2004

Ex A-11           Regd. Postal acknowledgement

Ex A-12           copy of minutes of meeting dt :8-6-2001.

Ex  A-13         

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY :  

Ex B-1              Policy No.551600/11/96/00220 dt:18.11.2007 effective from 18.11.1996

to  17.11.1997 along with schedule and terms and conditions.

Ex B-2              Internal Communication with regard to the accident and intimation

of the reason  for loss and approximate extent of loss dt :4.09.1997.

Ex B-3              Claim Intimation letter dt :09.09.1997 received on 10/09/1997.

Ex B-4              Fire Claim form

Ex B-5              Letter issued to the complainant by Surveyor which is self explanatory                                                     dt :03.08.1998

Ex B-6              Letter issued for extension of time for reinstatement of Dozer dt :23.08.1998

Ex B-7              Surveyor report (Mr. N.V.P.Sharma) dt : 5.11.1998

Ex B-8              Letter issued for extension of time for reinstatement of Dozer dt : 11.2.1999

Ex B-9              Letter dt :19.4.1999 issued for extension of time for reinstatement of Dozer

Ex B-10            Letter from OP  refusing the extension dt : 16.3.1999

Ex B-11            Letter dt : 14.7.2000 issued to the complainant to furnish particulars of the                       

                        number of Dozers in Operation in Ramagundam OCP-III as on date of the                      

                        Loss i.e. 4.9.1997

Ex B-12            Rejection letter of the Surveyor with receipt endorsement dt :4.8.2000

Ex B-13            Repudiation letter dt :5.11.2001

Ex B-14            Legal Notice dt : 2.4.2004

Ex B-15            Reply Legal Notice with proof of postal receipt. Dt : 24.5.2004

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

Dt. 28.06. 2010

*pnr