MANOJ KUMAR DAGA vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALVIYA NAGAR, DURG (C.G.)

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 9th November, 2001 in Complaint No. 94/99 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called as ''Distt. Forum'' for short), dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant with the direction that the complainant shall be at liberty to seek redressal in the Civil Court.

UNDISPUTABLY, the complainant has ''solvant Extraction Plant'' at Village Mohad. The stock of rice bran, De-oiled rice bran, De-oiled Soyabean, De-oiled Cake (for short D.O.C), Saal seed, and other articles are kept in the said industry. UNDISPUTABLY, the complainant/appellant had obtained from the respondent fire Policy ''C'' for the period from 29.9.1998 to 28.9.1999 for Rs. 10 lacs covering the risk from fire, etc. of the said stock. It is also not in dispute that in the afternoon of 23.6.1999, there was an incident of fire occurred in the said plant, resulting in damage to the D.O.C. stock. It is further not in dispute that the intimation of the incident was given by the appellant to the respondent/insurer who appointed Surveyor Engineer Naresh K. Jain. The Surveyor submitted his report on 26.7.1999 stating that the occurrence was a result of ''spontaneous combustion''. The respondents by their letter dated 13.9.1999, repudiated the claim of the complainant/appellant in view of exclusion clause, of the insurance policy which excludes coverage of risk due to loss on account of ''spontaneous combustion''. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,64,157/- on account of fire as above. It was also averred in the complaint that the complainant reached the spot immediately on receiving information about the incident of fire and took steps for extinguishing the same. As a result of fire, stock of D.O.C. to the tune of Rs. 1,64,157/- was damaged, as detailed in Schedule ''A'' to the complaint. It was further averred that the damaged stock was inspected by the Surveyor. It was alleged by the complainant that the repudiation of his claim on the ground of ''spontaneous combustion'' was not justified. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to pay him compensation of Rs. 1,64,157/- with interest, etc.

The complaint as above was resisted by the respondents. It was averred that incident of fire as above, occurred on account of negligence of the complainant as reported by the Surveyor. It was also averred that the incident was a result of ''spontaneous combustion''. The risk of fire by ''spontaneous combustion'' was excluded under the policy, hence the claim was repudiated.

THE learned Distt. Forum upheld the objection as above of the respondent/insurer and recorded a finding that the incident occurred on account of ''spontaneous combustion'' in the D.O.C. It was held that the said risk was specifically excluded as per Clause ''C'' of the exclusion in the fire policy obtained by the appellant. It was held that the respondent/insurer did not commit any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the applicant. It was, therefore, held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation. The learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant reiterated the complainant''s stand in the Distt. Forum and submitted that the complainant suffered loss on account of incident of fire. It was further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the complainant and, therefore, the claim could not have been rejected by the insurer on the alleged ground of ''spontaneous combustion''.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent/insurer, however, supported the impugned order. It was submited that the incident occurred on account of negligence of the complainant which resulted in ''spontaneous combustion'' in the stock DOC, as has been reported by Surveyor Naresh K. Jain. The main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the incident was due to ''spontaneous combustion in the DOC? It may be noticed that undisputably, the incident of fire occurred without any apparent cause. After the incident of fire occurred, the complainant was intimated about it. The complainant has averred in the complaint, as well as in his affidavit that he immediately reached the spot and took steps to extinguish the fire. Similarly, the affidavits of Prashant Jain and Raju Mathew employees of the appellant have also been filed.

THE respondents have produced the report of the Surveyor who has mentioned in his report, the detail of occurrence. According to the said report about 4,000 bags of Mahuwa DOC were kept at extreme east side of the building. Yakub Khan, Plant Supervisor noticed smoke coming and on lifting a few bags on the top side, he noticed that there was heat in the depth of the stock and the stock was heavily smoking. It was further stated that on lifting the top bags, it was found that the DOC was charred and were blackened. THE Surveyor also reported that the nature of damage to gunny bags and charred DOC clearly confirmed that it was a case of ''spontaneous combustion''. THE Surveyor has pointed out that when bags were shifted in his presence, the DOC stock at the bottom was found charred except the few top of the bags kept on the top of the stock. THEre was no evidence of rear flame at the affected area. THE Surveyor, therefore, concluded that it was a case of ''spontaneous combustion''.

DESCRIPTION of incident of fire as above by the Surveyor in his report explained as to how the DOC stock caught fire and as to how the Surveyor came to the conclusion that it was a case of ''spontaneous combustion'', which possibly resulted due to stocking DOC without its prior cooling. The conclusion as above of the Surveyor is based on sound reasoning. No expert opinion or other material has been placed by the complainant to rebut it. Therefore, the learned Distt. Forum was justified in relying upon the report of the Surveyor and in holding that the fire was as a result of ''spontaneous combustion.'' In view of above, the damage was excluded as per Clause ''C'' of Exclusions mentioned in the policy, according to which the said insurance policy did not cover the loss or damage to the property inter alia occasioned by ''spontaneous combustion''. In view of above, it is clear that the respondent/insurer have justifiably repudiated and rejected the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The finding as above of the learned Distt. Forum are, therefore, proper and are affirmed.

This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs of this litigation and pay that of the respondent/insurer, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.