BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 3 of 2013

                        Bhuyan Service Centre, Represented by its Attorney

                        Mansoor Hassan Barbhuiya,

                        Rongpur Part- IV, P.O- Rongpur, Silchar                                     Complainant.

                                                                        -V/S-

                 1.    UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL, Insurance Co. Ltd.

                        Regd. Office:- Unit No.401, 4^th floor, Sangam Complex,

                        127 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059

                        Represented by INCHARGE OF GUWAHATI OFFICE,

                        Universal Sompo General Insuranc Co. Ltd. G.S Road,

                        Opp. Rajib Bhawan, Guwahati – 781005.                                      O.P No.1.

                 2.    Indian Overseas Bank,

                        Head Office:- 3^rd floor, Trade Centre, Opp. MTNL building,

                        Bandhra, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051,

                        Branch Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Silchar Branch

                        Hailakandi Road, Rangirkhari, Silchar.                                         O.P No.2.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                 President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared: -    Mr. Mehboob Hussain Mazumder, Advocate for the complainant.

                                    Mr. A.S. Mitra, Advocate for the O.P.No.1

                                    Mr. Bikash Ranjan Paul, Advocate of the O.P.No.2.

                         Date of Evidence                              13-02-2014

Date of written argument                26-03-2014, 23-07-2014, 24-07-207

Date of oral argument                     08-12-2017, 17-02-2018, 25-06-2018                                                                                                                                          11-07-2018                 

 Date of judgment                             06-08-2018

                                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                  Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Bhuyan Service Centre (Petrolpump) obtained insurance policy of stocks of petroleum product including plant & machinery etc. from Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. (O.P.No.1) for the period from 16/10/2009 to 15/10/2010. But on 19/04/2010 due to cyclonic storm, lightening and incessant rain, the boundary wall of the petrol pump collapsed.  Accordingly, on information, the sales Manager of O.P.No.1 inspected and directed to remove the debris. While the claim of the said incidence of damaging of boundary wall vide claim No. CL10005299 dated 19/05/2010 was on processing the Complainant noticed on 08/06/2016 that petroleum product stored into underground tank in the petrol pump has been spoiled due to contamination of water in to the petroleum product. It has been detected that pith wall of the underground tank has been cracked and through the crack stagnant water enter in to the tank i.e water seepaged in to the underground storage tank.
2. Accordingly, necessary information submitted to the O.P.No.1 through Indian Overseas Bank (O.P.No.2). The said O.P.2 is the financer of the Complainant. On receipt of the information the O.P.No.1 registered the claim No. CL.1007568 on 09/06/2010. Not only that the surveyor and loss assessor of O.P.No.1 by issuing a letter dated 17/06/2010 informed the claimant for destruction of the oil contaminated by water. The claimant destructed the oil contaminated by water on 24/06/2010. The claimant there after submitted estimated loss as on 21/08/2010 of amount of Rs.5,04,760/- and also estimated cost of clearing 2 (two) underground tank of Rs.40,000/-. But the O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 19/01/2011 repudiated the claim.
3. As such, the instant complaint brought with further amount in connection with loss incurred in connection with close up of the business amounting Rs.19,17,860/- including earlier mentioned amount of Rs.5,04,760 + 40,000 = 5,44,760/-. The claimant also prayed to grant cost of the proceeding.
4. The O.P.No.1 in its W/S denied all the allegations. However, stated that the Complainant did not submit necessary documents for assessment of quantum of loss, for which from the material and documents available, calculated the assessed loss strictly for academic purpose at Rs.4,64,652/- because the fact that the peril of ‘seepage’ is not one of the 12 perils covered in the policy. The O.P.No.2 also in its W/S denied all the allegation and prayed to dismissed the case.
5. During hearing the Complainant submitted deposition of its lawful attorney Mansoor Hassan Barbhuiya and exhibited documents including corresponding letter addressed to the Complainant by surveyor cum loss Assessor & values Sri. Samiran Ghosh vide Ext.4. The O.P No.1 also submitted deposition of Piyush Sankar and exhibited standard Fire and special perils policy. The O.P.No.2 also submitted deposition of Sri Mithu Bhattacharjee and some documents regarding sanctioning of loan. After closing evidence the Ld. Advocate of the parties submitted their written argument.
6. In this case the alleged fact of contamination of petroleum product stored in the underground tank due to seepaging of stagnant water is not disputed by the contesting O.P. The plea of the O.P. No.1 is that the losses of petroleum product has been assessed for Rs.4,64,652/- only for academic purpose and the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount from insurance Co. for such loss because insurance policy does not cover such perils of seepage.
7. I have gone through the general exclusion clause of standard fire and special peril policy schedule. Nothing noticed regarding seepaging perils. But in the inclusion clause lightening is available. Accordingly, the complainant tried to establish the fact that underground 2(two) tank where petroleum product (Petrol & Diesel) storeyed have been cracked due to lighting occurred on 19/04/2010.
8. O.P.No.1 denied the alleged fact of destroying the tank pit protection wall due to incessant rain etc. occurred in 19/04/2010. Thus, it is required to established by the Complainant by adducing reliable evidence that the pit protection wall of underground tank has been cracked due to incessant rain, storm, cyclone & lightening. But I do not find any iota of evidence in that aspect except his statement made in the evidence.
9. Thus, in this case I do not find sufficient material to conclude that due to lightening the pit protection wall has been cracked. However, as per clause 11(A) of standard fire and special peril policy endorsement wordings in page 9 of Ext.A the insurance company can be held liable for taking risk of any physical loss of oil/chemical by leakage from container by accidental means and all accidental contamination by contact with foreign matter only when the insured paid additional premium. But in the instant case in view of Insurance Policy vie Ext.2 it is concluded that in the addon covers earthquake and terrorism is mentioned but nothing found for payment of addition premium to cover the risk as stated in above clause No.11 (A) for seepage.
10. Hence, in my considered view when alleged fact of cracking of pit protection wall of 2 (Two) underground tanks due to cyclonic storm, lightening and incessant rain are not established and no additional premium paid to cover risk of leakage and contamination mentioned under clause 11(A) of standard Fire and Special Perils Policy-Policy endorsement wording in page-12 of Ext.A, so the O.P. No. 1 is not liable to pay any damages.
11. As such in the case the Complainant is not entitled any relief as prayed for or any other relief as per law & equity. Thus, this case is dismissed on contest. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 6^th day of August, 2018.