IMPORTANT POINT
Exclusionary clause – Wherever such exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview thereof.

ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate and Ms. Ashmi Mohan, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (the complainant) (hereinafter referred to as the Insured) filed aforementioned complaint, for directing The Oriental Assurance Company Limited (opposite party) (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs.5.20/- crore, the compensation already paid to the dependants of deceased workmen of the contractors, (ii) Rs.20/- lakhs as the compensation to be paid to the dependants of the deceased workmen of the contractor, namely Krishna Chandra Majhi, (iii) Rs.10156094/- as the expenses incurred in Air Ambulance, Hospitalization and Medical to the deceased and the injured workmen of the contractor, (iv) Rs.62156094/-, i.e. interest @ 18% per annum on the above total amount (v) cost of litigation and (vi) any other relief, which may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint are as follows:-

(a) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (the Insured) had a refinery in Visakhapatnam, known as Diesel Hydro Treater Project at Visakh Refinery. On the date of incident, Cell Nos. 1 to 4 were under reconstruction and Cell No. 5, was under erection. Reconstruction and erection works were done through the contractors by their workmen, under the supervision of the employees of the Insured.

(b) The Insurer was a Public Insurance Company and engaged in business of providing insurance services. The Insured obtained Marine-cum-Erection Insurance Policy No. 111700/44/2011/16, for a sum of Rs.27657100000/-, from the Insurer. The Policy covers all risks or loss of damage to the subject matters attached with the policy except as excluded by the provisions of clauses-4, 5, 6 and 7, and included “General Average Clause” and “Both to Blame Collision Clause”. The Policy was initially valid for the period of 25.05.2010 to 24.01.2013. It was renewed for the periods of 25.01.2013 to 24.10.2013 and 25.10.2013 to 24.06.2015.

(c) On 23.08.2013, fire broke out in Cell No.-5, initially. Soon it took devastating turn and spread in Cell Nos.-1 to 4 also. Due to which tremendous loss was caused to lives and properties. Many of the workmen of the contractors were badly burnt in the incident. The Insurer immediately arranged for their treatment. The burnt workmen were shifted to Hospital in Bombay, airlifting them. In spite of best efforts, 17 workmen of Cell Nos.-1 to 4 and 10 workmen of Cell No.-5 lost their life.

(d) The Insured paid total compensation of Rs.5.20/- crores to the dependants of 26 deceased workmen. Krishna Chandra Majhi, one workman, survived for some time in hospital and died thereafter, as such, the Insured had to pay compensation of Rs.20/- lacs to his dependants. The Insured incurred total Rs.10156094/- as the expenses in Air Ambulance, Hospitalization and Medical of the injured/deceased workmen of the contractors.

(e) The Insured informed the Insurer about the incident. On which, the Insurer appointed Mr. Kalahasti Satyanarayanan as an Investigator, on 03.10.2013. The Insured set up the insurance claim of Rs.100039999/- vide letter dated 15.10.2013 and submitted the requisite papers. Thereafter various discussions and meetings were held between the officers of the Insured and the Insurer. However, the Insurer vide email dated 10.02.2014, repudiated the claim on the ground that fatal or non-fatal injury or illness of the employees or contractor’s workmen would not fall within the scope of the policy Section-II (Third Party Liability with Cross Liability).

(f) The Insured, vide letter dated 09.05.2014, requested for reconsideration of the matter. The Insured again, vide letter dated 03.02.2015, reiterated its inability to accept the liability in respect of loss of the contractor’s workme