STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Consumer Complaint No.51 of 2010) Date of Institution | : | 19.07.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 08.04.2011 |
M/s Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd., Plot No.5, Village Bakhli, Pehowa, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana 132027 through Shri R.K. Chopra, Manager/ Duly Authorised Attorney. ……Complainant. V e r s u s 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, sCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Manager. 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office SCO 836, 1st Floor, NAC Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh 160001 through its Branch Manager. .... OPs. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the OPs. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. Briefly stated, the complainant took a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from the OPs for the period from 3.4.2008 to 2.4.2009 for the sum insured of Rs.10.18 crores whereby the stock containing raw material, finished goods, material in process and/or semi finished goods and other allied nature of goods related to insured trade, whilst lying and/or kept and/or stored in the insured premises, were insured for which a premium of Rs.16,517/- was paid. On 14.2.2009, due to some welding work in the factory premises, some spark fell on the stock of rice husk which caused fire in which about 2200 tonnes of rice husk, valuing Rs.66 lacs was affected. The matter was reported to the OP/Insurance company and the claim for indemnification of the loss was lodged on 17.2.2009. Thereafter the complainant received letter dated 12.3.2010 from the OPs whereby the claim was repudiated on the ground that as per the surveyor’s report the loss had occurred due to self combustion which was not covered under the policy terms. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. In their written reply the OPs did not dispute the factual matrix. It has been admitted that a claim with regard to the fire incident was received from the complainant after which a Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed. However, it has been submitted that the alleged fire occurred in the factory of the complainant due to self combustion, as explained by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor in their initial report dated 18.2.2009 and final report dated 18.8.2009, and that the same was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated by the OP after due application of mind vide letter dated 12.3.2010, being out of scope of the terms and conditions of the policy. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties have led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, including the written arguments. 5. It has not been disputed by the OPs that the rice husk, which was under insurance with them, was damaged by fire, regarding which the surveyor was appointed by them and they submitted the report (Annexure R-4). The contention of the complainant is that some welding work was going on from which a spark fell on the rice husk due to which it was burnt. The OPs have not accepted this contention and have propounded a theory of self combustion. We also are not inclined to accept the story propounded by the complainant due to the reason that when the matter was first reported to the police, and DDR (Annexure C-4) was lodged, no such mention was made about the welding work being done at the spot or a spark having fell therefrom. The complainant produced the affidavit of Mahaveer Prasad, Boiler Incharge, who had first reported the matter to the General Manager of the complainant. However, in this affidavit also, he did not mention about the welding work going on or the spark having flown from the welding to the rice husk. The complainant has submitted his affidavit but he is not a witness to the spark falling on the heap of rice husk. The contention of the complainant that the rice husk caught fire due to the spark from the welding work, which has also been opposed by the OPs, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct. 6. On the other hand, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the OPs is that the fire was due to self combustion which is excluded under clause I(a)(i) of the policy (Annexure R-2). His contention is that haystacks, compost piles and unprocessed cotton may self ignite because of heat produced by bacterial fermentation. It may, however, be mentioned that rice husk does not fall under any of the above mentioned categories nor is there any proof of bacterial fermentation therein. The ld. Counsel referred to Wikipedia on spontaneous combustion and argued that a substance with a relatively low ignition temperature begins to release heat and when the same is unable to escape, the temperature of the material rises and it rises above its ignition point due to which combustion begins, if a sufficiently strong oxidizer, such as oxygen, is present. Again we may say that none of these conditions were present in the rice husk, neither it has a low ignition temperature nor the heat was unable to escape because the heap of rice husk was not covered from any side and was open to sky and, therefore, the temperature could not rise above its ignition point. The presence of oxygen or oxidizer is also missing because the major effect of the fire was below the upper surface. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was not a case of spontaneous combustion. 7. Since the rice husk had caught fire, and it is not self combustion and is not excluded under the policy of insurance, the OPs would be, therefore, liable to compensate the complainant of the loss suffered by them due to fire. 8. In order to assess the damage, the OPs had appointed Sh. Vinod Sharma, who submitted his final survey report (Annexure R-5) and he came to the conclusion that the loss was of Rs.17,37,265/-. The report of the surveyor is based on proper reasoning and calculations. He has come to this conclusion by taking the entire stock of rice husk which was affected by fire. The value of rice husk was also taken at reasonable rate and there is, therefore, no ground to disbelieve the said report, according to which the complainant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,37,265/-. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.17,37,265/- as compensation within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 12.3.2010 (the date of repudiation vide Annexure C-6), till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The OPs would also be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 8th April, 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER hg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
