IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company relied upon the report of the investigator that the cause of fire was sparking due to welding work.

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 24.06.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H.P. (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.01/2014, whereby the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant a private limited company had a factory at Ponta Sahib. The building, the raw material and the entire stock of complainant, available at the factory at Ponta Sahib, was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 08.02.2009 to 07.02.2010. A fire broke out in the factory premises of the complainant in November, 2009. A claim was lodged with the opposite parties for the loss caused due to the said fire incident. When the said claim was still pending, complainant in the month of January, 2010, approached the opposite parties for insuring the factory, the raw material and finished goods for a further period from 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2011. Opposite parties insured the building, which was under construction, because of its having been damaged due to earlier incident of fire, as also the goods kept therein for a sum of Rs.10.81 crores, for the period from 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2011. On 13.02.2010, another accident of fire took place, when a shed was being re-constructed. It resulted in huge loss which according to the complainant was to the tune of Rs.2.5 crores. A report was lodged with the police by the Personnel Manager of the complainant. Opposite party was also informed on that very day. A spot surveyor deputed by the opposite parties visited the spot on the very day of incident and submitted his report on 10.08.2010. A final surveyor deputed by the opposite parties, visited the spot in March, 2010 but submitted the report on 09.07.2013. According to the complainant, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.91,00,000/-. Consent of the complainant to accept the amount of Rs.81,23,481/- was obtained by the surveyor and submitted to the opposite parties along with his report. Opposite parties, however, repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 30.10.2013, on the ground that complainant caused breach of condition No.3 as it had stored packing material in the shed, which was under construction and in which welding of iron trusses and girders was going on and the welding process increased the risk of loss of insured building and property, by fire. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on merits.

3. Hence the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 30.10.2013 on the ground that the risk was increased without any intimation to the Insurance Company or without any permission from them. The surveyor has given report that the fire might have been caught by the spark generated from the welding machine as the welding work was going on in the shed that was under construction and packing material was also stored there in large quantity. Learned counsel stated that the fire may have been caused due to short circuit and not due to spark generated from the welding process. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the claim was also repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that there was violation of condition no.3 of the terms and conditions of the policy, according to which, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any claim, if change in the nature of the building has been done without any approval from the Insurance Company, which increases the risk. In this regard, learned counsel stated that it was a godown where the packing materials were already stored. However, as the building shed collapsed, the same was being rebuilt. In fact, no new activity was taken up in the godown, it remains a godown for packing material. Thus, there was no requirement of giving any intimation to the Insurance Company or to take approval from the Insurance Company. The surveyor after assessing the loss sought consent of the complainant, which was giv