AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had established a retreading'' factory at Hosadurga, which was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company for Rs. 5 lakh for the period 3.4.97 to 2.4.1998. It was the case of the complainant that on 3.5.1997 at about 3 a.m., the complainant''s factory caught fire accidentally, causing loss to the property including steam boilers, moulds, tyre size moulding machinery, etc. The matter was reported to the petitioner, who appointed a Surveyor. On 14.4.2000, the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the accident does not come within the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, claim cannot be given. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 3,20,000 for repair of the machinery. The District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,20,000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realisation along with cost of Rs. 2,500. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition.
WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. We like to reproduce the Cause of Fire Accident'' as well as the Note'' referred to in the report of Surveyor, B.R. Manjunath, which are as follows: "Cause to the fire Accident: From the evidence available at the insured''s place, the explosion of boiler occurred due to high intensity and pressure of steam in which the safety valve did not operate, and vacuum created inside the boiler and due to which the boiler was exploded and there was no fire at all and only explosion was there.
NOTE: The above claim is NOT PAYABLE, since the insured has taken Fire Policy A and not Boiler Explosion policy and it is not covered under the above policy and also informed to the insured to take up the matter with the supplier, since it is of manufacturing defect as the Safety Valve has not operated and it is of hardly one day used new machine and subsequently, I came to know that the supplier has replaced the same by new one under FREE OF COST. "
THERE is no dispute as severally held by this Commission and by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the report of the Surveyor is an important document, which cannot be brushed aside easily without any valid justification or any report to the contrary.
AS per Surveyor report, the damage was caused by the explosion of boiler. We would also like to observe that as per condition 3 of Fire Policy A'', this will fall in the exclusion clause, which reads as follows: "3. Explosion/implosion but ex -cluding loss of or damage to (a) boilers (other than domestic boilers) economisers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which steam is generated or their contents resulting from their own explosion/ implosion; (b) caused by centrifugal force." (Emphasis supplied)
IN our view, both the lower Fora erred in arriving at the conclusion that this was a case of accidental loss. The report of the Surveyor is categorical that damage was caused by explosion of the boiler, which would make it fall under the exclusion clause of the policy. No evidence of whatever type has been produced by the respondent /complainant to contest this finding of the Surveyor. In the absence of anything to the contrary, both the lower Fora could not have arrived at the conclusion which they did. The report of the Surveyor clearly brings this episode under the exclusion clause, hence not making it fall within the terms of the policy, in view of which, the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner has to be upheld in the facts and circumstances narrated above.
IN the aforementioned circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by both the lower Fora are set aside and complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.