IMPORTANT POINT
Lightening Strike - The incident of lightening struck on the insured’s premises is borne out by the reports in the local newspapers and the visit of revenue and police officials to the premises. There is no evidence produced to the contrary by the opposite party.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This complaint has been filed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short, ‘the Act’) alleging deficiency in service in the repudiation of its insurance claims under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policies issued by the opposite party.

2. The fact of the case in brief, as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had established a cold storage in village Duggirala, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh for storage of agricultural products in 2008 after obtaining necessary clearances from the local Gram Panchayat, Deputy Chief Inspector, Factory Department, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and Fire and Emergency Department, Andhra Pradesh. He was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,30,00,000/- by the Indian Bank, Vijayawada for the said cold storage. The complainant had obtained two Standard Fire and Special Peril Policies no.150800/11/11/11/00000051 and no.150800/11/11/110000083 including one enhancement policy no.150800/11/11/1183000009 each for a period of four months from 19.04.2011 to 18.08.2011 and from 06.05.2011 to 05.09.2011 respectively, covering stock for Rs.25 crores and building and plant machinery for Rs.3.08 crores. It is submitted by the complainant that on 06.07.2011 evening in the course of torrential rains, chamber B of the cold storage was struck by lightening and this led to the collapse of the two chambers on the stocks stored while operations were on. The incident was reported to the opposite party by letter dated 06.07.2011 which was received on 07.07.2011. An FIR was lodged with the local police on the same day. It is submitted that the incident was also reported in the local newspaper and that the site was visited by the local revenue and police officials.

3. Based on the intimation received, the opposite party appointed M/s Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., who visited the site on 09.07.2011 and 10.07.2011. The surveyor inspected the premises and the complainant furnished various documents sought by them on 13.09.2011. The complainant filed two claim forms for damaged stocks. Rs.1,33,91,310/- was claimed for the stock and Rs.4,40,06,339/- for building, machinery and other equipments. The latter claim was subsequently modified to Rs.2,10,00,000/- since inadvertently the value of both the plants had been included. The total claim was for Rs.3,34,25,044/-.

4. The opposite party vide its letter dated 27.02.2012 repudiated the claims on the basis of the survey report, stating that it was established that the insured building/ cold storage unit had collapsed due to improper structural design, poor quality material and poor quality workmanship which were not covered under the said policy. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.03.2012 to the opposite party which was replied to on 12.04.2012 by the opposite party reiterating the grounds of repudiation. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party did not provide a copy of the survey report dated 05.02.2012 until 19.07.2012 when it was applied for under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. The complainant has stated that the building was constructed as per the technical recommendations of the department of Civil Engineering V R Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada and an independent survey of the cold storage was done on 05.07.2007 by a Consultant Engineer, Mr. K Srinivasa Rao of Kartik Consultancy and Mr. K Srinivasa Rao who certified that the structural design and workmanship were of IS standards. Complainant has relied upon a letter dated 10.11.2008 of the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., allotting power to the cold storage in support of his contention that the building was structurally sound. He has relied upon the certificate of K Panakalu, Licenced Structural Engineer and Consulting Engineer, Guntur to emphasize that proper norms of construction including specifications were adopted. It is also mentioned that a loan of Rs.2.26 crores was sanctioned by the Indian Bank, V