This is another interesting case where United India Insurance company was able to reject a claim based on the fact that the structure that was used was not built in a scientific manner. This case clearly shows that an owner of the property cannot get benefit from an insurance policy if the structure is badly built and this results in the claim or accident.
Details of the claim are given below.
*************************************************************************
Claim Details
*************************************************************************
****************
Shri Yogeshwar Dutt S/o Shri Goria Ram,
R/O Paplota, PO Domehar, Tehsil Arki,
Distt. Solan (H.P.)
… Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
The Mall, Solan through its Branch Manager. …Opposite Party.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that he being owner of the Brick kiln named and styled as B.K.G. Bricks Gram Udyog at village Paplota, P.O. Domehar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., purchased one insurance policy bearing No.819767, on, 06.12.2005 from the OP-Company, which was valid upto 05.12.2006. He further alleged that on, 21.10.2006, the brick stock got fire and explosion, hence, the entire stock was destroyed in the said fire and explosion.
The complainant, further, proceeded to aver, that, the aforesaid fire incident, was brought to the notice of the OP-Company, as such, got the loss assessed. Thereafter, the complainant supplied the requisite documents to the OP-Company for settlement of the insurance claim, but the OP-Company, instead of settling his claim, repudiated the same, on, 01.04.2006, illegally and wrongly. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, that there is no cause of action, locus standi to file the present complaint, and non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased the insurance policy, rather, the same was issued in the name of HPSCDC Solan. It is also denied that the brick kiln was insured by the complainant.
They contend that a standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance policy bearing No.111301/11/05/11/00000645, w.e.f. 06.12.2005 to 05.12.2006, was purchased by HPSCD Corporation, Solan A/c Yogeshwar Dutt, from the OP-Company covering the risk of Plant and Machinery for Rs.2.00 lacs and stock of finished and unfinished goods for Rs.2.00 lacs. It is further contended that on the night of 21.01.2006, an explosion took place in the said kiln due to gas formation from the burning coal inside the kiln causing partial damage to the kiln, hence, only 25000 bricks were found to be broken and damaged on account of the aforesaid explosion, hence, it is denied that the total loss was caused to the brick kiln. They further contend that the brick kiln, was not covered by the insurance policy. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. Undisputedly, the policy, as purchased by the complainant from the OP-Company, took within, its, ambit destruction or damage caused to the Brick Kiln, of the complainant. An explosion, took place, on, 21.01.2006 in the property of the complainant as insured with the OP-Company. The OP-Company succinctly has repudiated the claim of the complainant, on, the score of the purported cause of the explosion as had occurred in the Brick Kiln factory of the complainant, falling within the scope of the exclusionary clause, of, Annexure R-1, annexed with the file of the case, inasmuch, as, in the eventuality of the destruction having come to be caused to the insured property by, its, own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion, then, the liability of the OP-Company, to, indemnify the complainant the damage caused to the property insured, is, exculpated.
6. The OP-Company, to, sustain, its, contention, has relied upon Annexure R-2, which, is, the report of the Surveyor & Loss Assessor, in, which, he, has detailed the cause of explosion and which cause of fire/explosion in the Brick Kiln of the complainant, which, is, the property insured with the OP-Company, has been anvilled on, the strength of the statement of the complainant, in which he has attributed the said explosion, to gas formation, as had occurred in the ignited coal set, a, fire, to, bake the raw bricks. The cause of fire attributed in the report of the Loss Assessor, anvilled, on, the statement of the complainant, which statement exists, on, record, as, Annexure R-5, being neither controverted or repulsed and, its, perusal foisting truthfulness to the cause of explosion, in, the Brick Kiln as attributed in the report of the Loss Assessor, hence, assumes conclusiveness.
7. With the conclusion as formed above and with the existence on record of the photographs of the Brick Kiln, whose perusal divulges the fact that the complainant had taken to bake bricks in the Brick Kiln plant not designed in a scientific manner, rather, it being, a, plant fabricated by local methods, obviously, the act of the complainant in setting a fire, the coal heaped along with raw bricks, which ignited coal, admittedly, as, revealed in Annexure R-5 resulted, in, gas formation and explosion of the lot of bricks heaped in the Brick Kiln.
With the complainant admittedly having resorted not to bake bricks in a Brick Kiln Plant, fabricated in a scientific manner in accordance with an approved project, rather, his having taken to adopt local as well, as, unscientific methods, to bake bricks, which, local method, as, borne out by the admission of the complainant proved disastrous or in other words, when the, local methods, admittedly resulted, in, the explosion in the Brick Kiln, causing by gas formation, arising from the ignited coal used for baking of the bricks, hence, inevitably, given the square and unimpeachable admission, of, the complainant, we are led, hence, to the sequel, that, the OP-Company has been able to clinchingly prove, that, the cause of explosion admittedly as was caused by gas formation arising from the burning of coal used for baking bricks in a unscientifically fabricated Brick Kiln Plant, emphatically falls within the scope, of, the exclusionary clause, as referred, to, above.
8. With the OP-Company, having proved the cause of explosion in the Brick Kiln of the complainant having been caused by the facts falling within the exclusionary clause, accordingly, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by it, was tenable, hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP-Company.
9. Resultantly, the complaint deserves dismissal as such we dismiss the same. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
No comments:
Post a Comment