(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) Complainant is a manufacturing company engaged in business of caustic soda, synthetic rutile, PVC etc. based in Sahapuram, Tamilnadu. This consumer complaint filed by the complainant company through Mr.T.Chandru, its Senior General Manager (Electrical) alleging deficiency in service on the part of The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘opponent insurance company’) for repudiating the insurance claim payable under insurance policy on account of damage sustained to insured Diesel Generator Sets (hereinafter referred to as ‘DG sets’).
(2) Salient features giving rise to file this consumer complaint are that:-
The complainant company purchased an Industrial All Risk Policy being Policy No.1202000/11/08/06/00000492 to cover insurance to Captive Power Plant comprising of Six DG sets of 6 MW capacity located at Shahpuram, Tamilnadu. Validity period of the said policy was for the period of one year commencing from 17/08/2008 to 16/08/2009 with sum assured of `1,20,00,00,000/- and out of which plant and machinery comprised of `95,00,00,000/-. On 02/11/2008, the dummy plug near B-5 crank pin became loose as a result of which the lube oil pressure in the DG set No.5 dropped. At that point of time, the lube oil pressure dropped to 3.5 bar as a result of which the alarm was activated. As per the Trouble Shooting Chart (Operating Manual), reasons for the alarm were tried to be ascertained by the Shift Operator. However, at 1.40 p.m., the DG set No.5 was tripped. As a result, insured DG set No.5 among other instruments was damaged. Damage was notified to the opponent insurance company intimating the accidental physical loss within the terms of policy that occurred on 04/11/2008. The complainant appointed M/s.Rastek Pvt.Ltd. expert in the field to analyse the reasons for the damage. The said expert filed report with observations as below:-
As per our record DG# 5 ESN-6007 Engine is not having any major break down record previously. This is the first major breakdown occurred on 02/11/2008 at 13.40 hrs due to loosening of crankshaft plug.
In view of the safety devices functioning property the DG#5 has engine tripped on low lube oil pressure and this was prevented from major damage to the engine. All the safety devices were properly checked during routine overhauls and also on regular basis. This is strictly followed to ensure the safety of the engines.
(3) Upon intimation of this incident, insurance company appointed S.Anantha Padmanaban as authorized surveyor. The said surveyor visited factory site and prepared his report. Though the surveyor agreed with the expert report with the M/s.Rastk Pvt.Ltd., but observed that alarm was activated as lube oil pressure at 3.5 bar, the complainant stopped the engine and allowed to trip automatically. Authorized surveyor along with expert appointed by the insurance company observed that the complainant allowed DG set engine to operate for 10 days with drop in oil pressure amounting to gross negligence. Lube oil pressure was progressively dropping effective from 24/10/2008 without getting stabilized and lube oil went down to 4.45 bar. The complainant company submitted that the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy amounting to `54,34,858/- was inclusive of various invoices, work orders, payment to banks and other charges. However, authorized surveyor slashed, the said claim to `35,53,868/- arbitrarily without providing any reason whatsoever. Based on the report of the surveyor and the expert-Mr. K. Gopalkrishnan appointed for the purpose, claim of the complainant was repudiated stating that the claim was false under exclusion clause 2(a) of the insurance policy. The said clause reads as under:-
“Any willful act or willful negligence on the part of the insured or any person acting on his behalf.”
(4) In spite of having taken all due care as per the operating manual of DG set and having made all sustainable efforts to reduce further damage, the engine claim payable under the policy has been rejected arbitrarily as stated by the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, this consumer complaint has been filed claiming `54,34,858/- with ancillary claim of interest @18% p.a. and amount of `5 lacs as exemplary charges.
(5) The insurance company appeared by filing written version. The insurance company has denied the contentions of the complainant stating that the insured DG set even after activating alarm at lube oil pressure at 3.5 bar the insured did not discontinue the engine and allowed it to get tripped automatically at lube oil pressure of 2.8 bar when there was appreciable load on the engine. As admitted by the complainant company, the alarm was activated when lube oil pressure dropped to 2.5 bar but the DG set was allowed to run thereafter which was tripped automatically. The complainant ought to have put off the machine when alarm was activated at 3.5 bar of lube oil pressure. It is further contended that as a prudent owner, it was for the complainant company to take immediate steps to minimize the further damages to the insured property. On the contrary, the complainant company did not take steps to stop the engine when there was alarm signal the alarm was on and allowed the same to get tripped automatically. The surveyor who visited along with the expert Mr.K.Gopalkrishnan observed following other important findings :-
a. The insured appears to have changed Lub oil on 23/10/2008 (10 days prior to breakdown) and re-started the Engine and the oil pressure recorded at that time was 5.6 bar.
b. From the lub oil pressure readings forwarded by the insured, it is observed that the lub oil pressure was progressively dropping (though slowly) from 24/10/2008, without getting stabilized and went down to 4.45 bar at 1.01 p.m. on 02/11/2008 i.e. the date of loss and further was dropping rapidly.
c. The insured’s contention, that the engine cannot be stopped abruptly, stands to no reasoning, since, on the date of loss, it has tripped and stopped at full speed only. Hence, it cannot be construed as a rule, that in an emergency, the engine cannot be stopped. It is possible to shift the load to the other Engines and take a shut down of this engine, much ahead of the failure, when lub oil pressure drop was observed and recorded by the insured.
(6) Heard and perused record placed before us. The insurance company relied on expert report concluded that the insured engine allowed to run 10 days i.e. from 23/10/2008 to 02/11/2008 i.e. till the date of break down though admittedly lube oil was progressively dropping and repudiated the claim of the complainant attributing to negligence as such contingency not covered under the insurance policy.
(7) The complainant and opponent relied on the operating manual and the operation chart of the said insured DG set. However, it is not clear whether running of insured DG set was safe with lube oil pressure above 4.5 bar as no expert evidence led by the complainant compnay. The expert report submitted on behalf of the insurance company is disputed. However, there is no rebuttal documentary evidence filed by the complainant company to establish as to what corrective steps were initiated and actually steps taken from the date of changing lube oil on 23/10/2008 till the date of breakdown on 02/11/2008, when admittedly there was progressive and rapidly dropping of lube oil pressure effective from 24/10/2008 to stabilize the engine at 4.5 bar on the date of occurring of an incident on 02/11/2008. It appears no steps were taken to prevent variation in operating parameters of machinery when it was identified before the reported break down. Authorised surveyor assessed net loss to the tune of `31,25,288/- (-) salvage of `8,16,237/- which comes to`23,09,051/-, however the loss is attributed to negligence of the complainant company. A useful reference can be made to relevant part of survey report :-
“It is observed from the papers submitted by the insured that there was a progressive reduction in lub oil pressure from 5.6 bar on 23/11/2008 (the date on which the insured had changed the Lub oil) to 4.8 bar on 01/11/2008) date of loss and there is no documentary evidence to understand as to how, this has gone up – noticed by the insured, when the set being a critical power Generator with full monitoring. In fact, on the date of loss on 01/11/2008, even after the alarm got activated at lub oil pressure at 3.5 bar, the insured did not stop the engine and allowed it to get tripped automatically at lub oil pressure at 2.8 bar, when there was appreciable load on the Engine. Whether, this is to be construed as Negligence, is left to the discretion of insurers.”
(8) Record does not reveal prompt steps taken to prevent damage to DG set as observed by surveyor and the expert evidence. Survey report is supported by affidavit evidence of the surveyor and so also the expert report of Shri K. Gopalkrishanan. There is no material/evidence to counter these findings. Therefore, repudiation of claim cannot be constituted as arbitrary and no deficiency in service against the insurance company can be attributed.
(9) From the foregoing observations, we find that the complainant company failed to establish deficiency in service against the opponent insurance company as the repudiation of the insurance claim cannot be construed as arbitrary one. Complaint is devoid of merit.. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The complaint stands dismissed.
(2) Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 14th February, 2013.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment