Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
M/S. TAJ SUGAR WORKS—Complainant
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 44/SC of 1997—Decided on 4.2.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : None.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Anand Mohan, Advocate.
Spontaneous combustion is covered under the definition of 'fire' in the policy, as established by the authoritative view of the National Commission in previous cases.
Headnote:
Insurance - Fire Insurance - II (1996) CPJ 6 (NC) - The court discussed the definition of 'fire' and held that spontaneous combustion is covered under the definition of 'fire' in the policy. The court referred to the authoritative view of the National Commission in the case of Saraya Sugar Mills Limited v. United India Insurance Company Limited and M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Limited v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint for recovery of Rs. 11,26,000 along with interest and compensation for the loss suffered due to fire in his sugar factory. The insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the damage was caused by spontaneous combustion, which was not covered under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that spontaneous combustion is covered under the definition of 'fire' in the policy, based on the authoritative view of the National Commission in previous cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to claim damages for the loss suffered due to damage caused by spontaneous combustion of the stock.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'fire' and the authoritative view of the National Commission in previous cases to determine that spontaneous combustion is covered under the definition of 'fire' in the policy.
Final Decision: The claim petition was partly decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,65,718.73 against the Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Rest of the claim was dismissed.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This complaint has been filed for recovery of Rs. 11,26,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant runs a sugar factory in village Shahbazpur, Post Kotwali Dehat, Distt. Bijnore under the name of M/s. Taj Sugar Factory. Complainant got the insurance of his factory premises done for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The policy commences from 18.1.1995 for a period of one year ending on 17.1.1996. The insurance risk was also covered under the insurance policy for which a sum of Rs. 6,783/- was paid as premium. In the factory the stock of sugar cane, ‘rab’, ‘sheera’ etc. were kept and they were all insured.
3. It is further alleged at about 2 a.m. on 22nd of April, 1995 one Mukesh, labourer had informed the complainant that in two tanks of rab smoke is coming out. When the complainant reached the place of incidence, he found that the rab was burning as smoke and bubbles were coming out. Complainant, therefore, tried to extinguish the fire but it could not be done. The rab which were kept in the tank was of 3000 quintals which were burnt. An FIR was lodged and information was sent to the Fire Department. Letters were also written to the Insurance Company and the claim was also lodged. The complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 11,26,000/- on account of the fire. On 19.6.1995 complainant received a letter from the Surveyor informing him that rab is inflammable material and hence no claim can be given for the same. When the claim was not allowed, the complaint was filed.
4. In the written statement the opposite party No. 2, Insurance Company, has admitted the insurance of the premises and the period of the risk cover. It has alleged that fire policy ‘C’ was taken and the coverage of risk was not taken by the complainant for losses to the stock due to spontaneous combustion nor any premium was paid for this purpose. It is admitted that the complainant had informed about the fire at 2 p.m. on the alleged date. After getting information of the incidence, the Insurance Company entrusted the matter to plot Surveyor. On the basis of preliminary inspection attributed to the cause of loss on account of spontaneous combustion. It is further alleged that this conclusion was reached on the basis of smoke and bubbles coming out of the rab. He has also recorded the statement of two witnesses who have stated that no fire was detected.
5. The final survey was entrusted to Sri Vijay Prakash Maheshwari, who referred the matter to the Hindustan Tasting and Research Laboratory (India), Sahibabad, Ghaziabad whose report dated 28.4.1995 shows that the ‘rab’ was burnt due to spontaneous combustion. It is further alleged that the Surveyor by his report dated 3.9.1995 assessed the net loss of Rs. 5,63,718.73 which according to him was not payable as the fire broke out due to spontaneous combustion which is not covered under the policy.
6. The complainant had filed an affidavit in support of his allegations contained in the complaint alongwith complaint itself. Opposite party has filed evidence in support of his contention at a later stage.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the opposite party and have perused the records. However, the complainant remained absent on the date of hearing.
8. The only question which arises in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages for the loss suffered by him on account of damage caused to his 3000 quintals of ‘rab’ which was stored in the tank. According to the parties the damage was done due to spontaneous combustion of the ‘rab’.
9. We have to examine the position as to whether the spontaneous combustion is covered under the definition of ‘fire’ or not. If the spontaneous combustion is covered under the term ‘fire’ then there was no point in paying additional premium for the spontaneous combustion as argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, Insurance C
