IMPORTANT POINT
Combustion may be rapid.

Rekha Gupta, Member—The above noted First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / opposite party against the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujrat, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) in Complaint No. 56/2011.

2. The respondent / complainant is a manufacturer and Dealer / Exporter of D.O.C (De Oil Cake). The appellant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils insurance policy also covering risk of spontaneous combustion and earthquake for the period 4-1-2009 to 3-1-2010 and had paid premium of Rs.1,99,738/-. During the policy period while sorting stock for export, the respondent found that stock of rape seeds of 7494.255 MT was black and charred. The respondent checked all the godowns where the stock of DOC stored. The respondent found that stock of DOC of groundnut was also black and charred. The entire stock was badly affected and was no longer fit for export. The respondent then immediately informed the appellant / insurance company about the incident and submitted a claim for Rs. 68,77,500/-. The insurance company appointed a surveyor for assessment of the loss. The surveyor had visited the premises of the respondent on 20-7-2009 and checked the damage caused to the goods physically. The surveyor assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 54 lakh. The respondent received a letter dated 28.0.2-10 from the appellant / insurance company repudiating the claim. According to the insurance company, the claim was not payable as the policy did not cover the loss. though the damage was caused to the goods by spontaneous combustion but there was no smoke or flame and hence the claim was not payable under the policy. The respondent personally met the officer of the insurance company and also wrote to them and requested to pay the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor but the opponent gave an evasive and vague reply by a letter dated 5.1.2011 through its advocate. The appellant had wrongly repudiated the claim and has thereby committed deficiency in service and shown unfair trade practice. Hence, the respondent / complainant filed consumer complaint to recover Rs. 56 lakh from the appellant / insurance company with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. thereon from the date of the survey report dated 19.1.2010. The respondent has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to him and also claimed Rs. 50,000/ as costs of the complaint.

3. The appellant/ insurance company was served with the notice. The insurance company contested the complaint by filing a written statement. The main contention of the appellant / insurance company in the written statement was that on receipt of the claim intimation, they appointed a Surveyor Mr. Upendra R. Shah and the Surveyor had examined the damage and found that damage to the insured goods was due to spontaneous combustion only but no flame or fire emanated from the stock. The surveyor submitted his report dated 19.1.2012 and opined that the claim was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the report of the surveyor, the insurance company repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 28.9.2010 stating that as per the insurance policy only risk of fire was covered excluding the damage due to spontaneous combustion and that add on cover was available to cover the risk of fire due to spontaneous combustion by paying additional premium. To cover the risk of fire due to spontaneous combustion it is required that there has to be a fire. Further, the stock was damaged due to fire caused by spontaneous combustion but as there was no fire or flame, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opponent.

4. The complainant / respondent had filed affidavit in rejoinder against the written statement filed by the opposite party / insurance company. In the rejoinder, the complainant had reiterated the averments made in the complaint and denied the contentions and allegations raised b