PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

            Having failed to convince the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gandhinagar (for short the ‘District Forum’) with regard to his claim of insurance arising out of the incident of fire damaging its plant and machinery and further having failed in its attempt to successfully challenge the order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat, Ahmedabad (for short the ‘State Commission) ; the complainant has filed this revision petition to assail the concurrent findings of the fora below.

          Vide our order dated 29.8.2008, notice limited only as to whether the respondent – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. should have compensated the petitioner/complainant as per the assessment of loss made by the surveyor was issued to the respondent.

Facts relevant to the limited issue are as follows ---  the petitioner had obtained a fire policy for a sum of Rs.1,55,09,165/- to cover his factory premises the details of which are given in the schedule of the policy at page 95 of the paper book. Apart from covering office building, process block and other items, the policy also covered plant and machinery to the extent of Rs.71,04,359/-.  The policy covered the risk w.e.f. 5.1.2000 to 4.1.2001. It appears that subsequently the petitioner/complainant wanted to add some more machinery/ equipment worth Rs.40 lakhs to its existing unit for the insurance cover of which an extra premium of Rs.13,600/- was required to be paid to the respondent/insurance company.  A cheques for Rs.13,600/- was sent to the insurance company on 20.10.2000.  The very next morning at about 3.00 a.m. on 21.10.2000, the newly added machinery caught fire and intimation in this regard was given to the respondent – insurance company on 29.10.2000.  M/s Bhatawadekar and Co. were thereafter appointed a surveyor to assess the loss who submitted their report on 17.10.2001.  The surveyor after taking into account the composite value of the old machinery & equipment and the newly purchased machinery valued at Rs.34.70 lakhs arrived at the conclusion that the total loss amounted to Rs.1,17,679/- after allowing for depreciation and under insurance.

          M/s Absolute Insurance Investigator who too were appointed to investigate the matter, however, gave a different finding in which they concluded that the petitioner/complainant put the oven (the new equipment) to load trial without the temperature controllers, indicators and Duplex Type Thermocouple.  It further held that the petitioner had tried to take the insurance cover on 19.10.2000 i.e. a day prior to the trial of the machine, though the machine was installed at the insured’s factory premise much earlier on 3.6.2000.

          Since the dispute related only with regard to the fire to the oven, the new equipment, the District Forum dealt at length whether the premium of Rs.13,600/- for including the same in the original policy for insurance cover have been duly endorsed and was valid. After a thorough discussions of the covering letter through which the cheque was sent and the movement of the cheque thereafter came to the conclusion that while the cheque dated 17.10.2000 was dispatched on 19.10.2000, the same was received by the respondent on 20.10.2000 but in the absence of any details for which the amount had been dispatched, the same was kept pending in the suspense account.  Meanwhile, on the 21^st early morning itself, the fire  broke out.  21^st and 22^nd being Saturday and Sunday, the endorsement on the policy after ascertaining the purpose of the cheque from the Development Officer, Shri Manojbhai Makwana could be made on 25.10.2000.  The insurance company was oblivious of the incident of fire by then since the complainant informed about the same on 29.10.2000.  Under the circumstances, the District Forum held that the risk was not covered on 21.10.2000 i.e. on the day when the damage/peril occurred and accordingly dismissed the complaint.  The same view was taken by the State Commission in appeal.

          It is against this concurrent finding that this revision petition has been filed by the complainant.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a cheque for Rs.13,600/- for enhancement of the value in the earlier policy to cover the new equipment costing Rs.40 lakhs was given on 17.10.2000.  For the fault of respondent – insurance company and Development Manager, the endorsement was not made before the incident of fire for which the petitioner/complainant cannot be blamed. As a service provider when the payment had been made, they should have promptly made the endorsement to include the new equipment.  He, further contends that since the surveyor appointed by them has held that there has been a loss of Rs.1,17,679/-, the least the respondent could do is to compensate the complainant to that extent.

          Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has justified the order passed by the fora below and has contended that in the absence of any concluded contract/endorsement on the policy to include the new equipment, it has been rightly held that when the incident  of fire took place, the said equipment was not covered under the insurance policy.  He further contends that while the incident of fire occurred on 21.10.2000, the intimation was given only on 29.10.2000 for which there is no explanation.  As per the investigator’s report, the complainant himself was responsible for the negligent manner in which he had put the oven to trial without proper inspection by the supplier even though it was installed four months back.  In the absence of any details of premium and any other particulars of what to insure, the respondent – insurance company could not have taken any further action thereon.    

          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the records carefully.

          In order to establish any claim for the damage to their new equipment/machinery (the oven in this case) as a result of the peril, the complainant has to first establish that the said equipment/ machinery is covered under any insurance policy.  In the case in hand, the damage as a result of the fire was only to the new equipment i.e. oven.  It was not covered under the original policy of the complainant in which plant and machinery to the extent of Rs.71,04,359/- was covered.  They related to only the old plant/equipment.  In order to include the new machinery/equipment, the complainant sent a cheque dated 17.10.2000 for Rs.13,600/-  which was received by the respondent – insurance company on 19.10.2000.  The cheque was sent as enclosure to a letter which neither  gave purpose for which the amount was being sent nor did it mention as to how the amount had been calculated.  Even though the letter was received by the insurance company on 19.10.2000 ;  they could not take any action thereon in the absence of any mention about the purpose for which the amount was remitted by the complainant to them.  The next day i.e. on 20^th night/21^st morning at 3.00 a.m., the peril is claimed to have occurred. It was not immediately brought to the notice of the respondent – insurance company and, therefore, an endorsement on the policy appears to have been made on 25.10.2000.  It has been contended that the complainant informed the respondent about the incident only on 29.10.2000 for which no explanation has been offered.  Thus, it is amply clear that when the new equipment caught fire on 21.10.2000, early in the morning, it had no cover of insurance and, therefore, the basic foundation to lodge a claim under the policy was absent.  Under the circumstances, even if there be an assessment of loss by a surveyor, the claim would not be admissible.  We, therefore do not find anything illegal, irregular or beyond jurisdiction in the concurrent finding of the two fora below.  The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

          …………………..………J

     (R.K. BATTA)

       (PRESIDING MEMBER)

                                                                   ……………….……………

                                                        (S.K. NAIK)

                                                                            MEMBER

St/1