Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Amrit Environmental Technologies P. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.94 of 2008
Decided on 9.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When material facts were suppressed while taking insurance policy, repudiating claim by the insurance company does not amount to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Complaint—A biomass based power generating Plant of 8 MW was set up by the Complainant at RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana, Kotputli, Rajasthan—The Power Plant was commissioned in Sept. 2006—The boiler was blazed up as per schedule and the turbine was synchronized to the grid on 28.08.2007—After about 15 hours of successful running, the Travelling Grate started giving trouble, broke down and the boiler stopped at 9:50 a.m. on 29.08.2007—O.P. was informed about the breakdown of the machinery, vide letter dated 30.08.2007—Claim was repudiated as material facts were suppressed by the complainant—Hence, complaint was filed attributing deficiency in service and to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant with other reliefs—Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the record—It is held that the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party due to breach of Policy conditions—We find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company—Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed—There shall be no order as to costs.
Result: Complaint is dismissed without costs.
C. Viswanath, Member—A biomass based power generating Plant of 8 MW was set up by the Complainant at RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana, Kotputli, Rajasthan.
2. According to the Complainant, the Power Plant was commissioned in Sept. 2006. The boiler was blazed up as per schedule and the turbine was synchronized to the grid on 28.08.2007. After about 15 hours of successful running, the Travelling Grate started giving trouble, broke down and the boiler stopped at 9:50 a.m. on 29.08.2007.
3. Learned Counsel for the Complainant stated that the Opposite Party was informed about the breakdown of the machinery, vide letter dated 30.08.2007. Thereafter, the Complainant initiated necessary steps to restore the functioning of the boiler as provided in the “sequence of technical events of break down in Travelling Grate from 17.08.2007 to 24.10.2007”. After the visit of Mr. H.S. Cheema, Managing Director, Cheema Boilers Limited (boiler manufactures) it was concluded that the Travelling Grate was misaligned because of thermal expansion of the boiler during running. Despite the Complainant intimating this incident to the Opposite Party vide letter dated 30.08.2007 and requesting them to depute the Loss Assessor and Surveyor to assess the losses, the Opposite Party failed to take any step. Though the loss incurred was known to the Opposite Party right from the very beginning, still the Complainant sent a written reminder on 01.10.2007. There was no pre-exiting condition which was unknown to the OP at the time of grant of the Policies. The Complainant also informed that the Plant was shut down on 17.08.2007 and restarted on 17.11.2007.
4. There has, thus, been a deficiency in service by the Opposite Party and the OP is liable to pay the claim of the Complainant. Complainant prayed to direct the OP to indemnify the loss and pay Rs.8,56,560/- to the Complainant, along with interest thereon @15% per annum from 30.09.2007 till actual realization of payment on account of damage due to break down in Travelling Grate on 28.08.2007 under MBD Policy; indemnify the loss and pay to the Complainant Rs. 1,85,60,000/- for loss of working days as the break down occurred on 29.08.2007, after giving due credit for time excess period of 7 days along with interest thereon @15% p.a. from 17.12.2007 till the date of actual realization of payment on account of loss of working days under MLOP Policy; and pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards the Compensation for mental agony, discomfort and sufferings etc. due to deficiency and negligence in services by the Opposite Party.
5. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party and reply filed. The OP contended that the Insurance Policy was obtained by suppression of material facts and is therefore void and no claim can be set up under the said policy. It was categorically stated that there is no deficiency in service and the Complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. According to the Opposite Party, the Plant was insured under Erection All Risks (EAR) Policy upto 16.8.06. On 11.08.06, the Complainant requested for extension of EAR Policy upto 16.10.06 and also sought to know the premium for Fire & Machinery Breakdown Policies. Fire, Fire Loss of Profits and Boiler Insurances were effected by the Complainant from 17.10.06, but coverage for Machinery Breakdown (MB) and Machinery Loss of Profits (MLOP) were deferred by the Complainant as they could not provide the details of equipment and machinery. Thereafter there were a series of correspondence with the Complainant on the equipment to be covered and quotations on insurance premium, but with little response. On 23.08.2007, the Complainant showed urgent interest in the Machinery Breakdown and Machinery Loss of Profit Insurance. He took the Machinery Breakdown Insurance with effect from 9am of 27.08.2007 to midnight of 26.08.2008 for a sum of Rs.9,65,72,076/- and Machinery Loss of Profit Insurance from midnight of 28.08.2007 to m
