Surveyor's report, while important, is not conclusive; claim exclusion must be proven by the insurer, particularly where there are indications of bias.

1. This complaint has been filed under S.21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the - Act') alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice in the repudiation of an Industrial All Risk Policy for a float glass factory obtained from the respondent.

2. In brief, the facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the complainant under a contract with China Quinhuangdao Yaohua Glass Machine company (in short, - Yaohua') is the manufacturer of float glass in Roorkee, Uttarakhand. The complainant took an Industrial All Risk Policy for the float glass line factory from 2006 till 2013. Policy No. 112000/11/12/06/00001558 was issued on 01/02/2013 for a sum of Rs.812 crores for the period 01/02/2013 to 31/01/2014 by paying the necessary premium to the opposite party. As per Cover Note No. 13890, the policy covered Plant & Machinery for Rs.382 crores including electrical installations, furniture fittings, computers, etc. and / or building above plinth level including boundary walls, roads on reinstatement value basis, Raw Material Stock including finished / semi finished stock, stores and spares, packing material, furnace oil, work in progress for Rs.55 crores, Rs.45 crores on Plinth covering SIFI & earthquake, Rs.310 crores on Plant & Machinery / Electrical installation / computer / EEI, and Rs.20 crores for business interruption (Fire LOP Indemnity period of 12 months). On 28/04/2013 at about 3 p.m. the firewall of the R/S furnace regenerator between burner port No. 3 and 4 collapsed with a blast resulting in flames coming out of the line and damaging the tie rod above, the top of the furnace and roof. Emergency repair was initiated and M/s. Dukhiram Maurya Engineering and Refractory Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. were engaged. The emergency repairs were completed by 11 p.m. and the factory's technical consultant, M/s. Float Glass Consortium Ltd., Lancashire, UK (FCG) advised procurement of a new refractory. Opposite party No. 1 was intimated by email on 11/05/2013, requesting for deputing a surveyor.

3. On 13/05/2013 Opposite party 1 responded by asking for the furnishing of an estimate of loss. On 17/05/2013 an estimate of Rs.30,50,000 for temporary repair of refractory and Rs.5.83 crores towards permanent repair and production loss was provided by the complainant. The factory was inspected on 18/05/2013 by R. K. Jain, Surveyor who drew up proceedings recording that the reason for the collapse of the divider wall was "poor quality refractory used during construction of the Furnace Regenerator" on the basis of discussions with the Plant Head and Technical Consultant during survey which was not endorsed by the complainant's representative or the technical expert from M/s. FCG.

4. According to the complainant, the surveyor's report dated 03/08/2013 by R. K. Jain had no basis for concluding that the Opposite parties were not liable for payment of insurance as the collapse was attributable to poor quality of refractory. Complaint avers that no scientific basis for this conclusion in the report has been provided, including any supporting tests. It is contended that the surveyor lacked the requisite qualifications, expertise and experience. The reliance of the Surveyor on Art.9.1 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the complainant and Yaohua that in the event of the failure of the furnace within 16 years of operation, it would be Yaohua who would be fully responsible is contested by the complainant on the ground that Art.9.2 of the MoU limits this liability to bearing only the cost of corrective engineering. Also, that Art.10 read with Art.1(b) of the MoU specifies the Guarantee - Warranty period to be only 12