ORDER :

[PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 30.04.2014 of the Respondent in respect of Insurance claim No.520000/11/2014/000005/IAR under Policy No.520000/11/2013/101 for Spontaneous Combustion to Coal Stocks in Unit II and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to settle the insurance claim as estimated by the petitioner.]

1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of power generation and manages three Coal based Thermal Power Plants at Gummidipoondi. Unit-I and Unit-III of the Thermal Plants are stated to be insured with M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited and Unit-II with the respondent herein, being the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. A Fire Industrial All Risks Policy had been taken bearing No.520000/11/2013/101 dated 04.09.2012 for the period 04.09.2012 to 03.09.2013 for a sum insured of Rs.2,74,05,00,000/-. The policy covered building, furniture, fittings, plant and machinery and omission to insure.

2. Apart from loss of profit for Fire and Machinery breakdown, an endorsement was made to the policy on 07.12.2012 to include the stock of Coal covering a value of Rs.15 crores with spontaneous combustian risk/cover. The period of insurance was amended to read 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2013 by way of an endorsement made on 07.09.2012. The lending bank interests were also suitably amended on 18.12. 2012.

3. The petitioner intimated the respondent that 'hotspot' had been observed on 31.05.2013 at 15.00 hours and the same commenced burning at 19.30 hours on 03.06.2013. One M/s.L.S.Surveyors had been appointed on 03.06.2013, who had witnessed the fire and the loss of the coal in Unit-II. The fire was brought under control following the standard operation procedure. The petitioner estimated the loss at a sum of Rs.6,37,72,508/- and made a claim before the respondent.

4. One Mr.Dakshinamoorthy was appointed as a Surveyor on 04.06.2013 and a final survey report had been filed on 10.10.2013. The petitioner thereafter made enquiries commencing from 2013 through subsequent letters and remainders, the last of which was sent on 24.01.2014, seeking the status of its claim. By letter dated 13.03.2014, the respondent wrote to the petitioner indicating its inclination to repudiate the claim and calling for an explanation. On 24.03.2014 and 29.04.2014, detailed letters and explanations were putforth by the petitioner responding to the notice received. A specific objection was raised pointing out that the survey or selected had not been of the category required under the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA Regulations).

5. Despite the objection raised, the impugned order has come to be passed on 30.04.2013 pointing out various alleged defeciencies/lacuna in the protocols followed in Unit-II and, in conclusion, repudiating the claim made.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would straightaway raise a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this writ petition pointing out that the proper course of action would have been for the petitioner to have approached the civil court. The impugned order touches upon the factual aspects of maintenance of Unit-II as well as various deficiencies that were noticed in the course of survey itself. Thus, this Court sitting in Article 226 would not be the proper forum to decide an issue of this nature, particularly, seeing as the prayer of the petitioner is for the order of repudiation to be set aside and a direction issued to the respondent to honour the policy.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated by virtue of two factors. Firstly, the procedure followed by the respondent is in violation of that stipulated under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interest) Regulations, 2002.

8. My attention is specifically drawn to the procedure