The date of discovering damage is not equivalent to the date of loss under insurance claims; the insured must prove that the incident causing loss occurred within the policy period for indemnification.

ORDER

PER HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBERFEDCBA

1. Heard Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate, for OP insurance company.

2. Complainant - M/s Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., a Public Ltd. company is engaged in the business of Electrical Power Generation in the State of Gujarat. Complainant commissioned its first power project, a 145 MW gas based Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP) as Captive Power Plant (CPP) in February, 1992 at Vadodara. OP insurance company issued an Industrial All Risks Insurance Policy to the Complainants for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 for total sum assured of Rs.701.91 crores. Linder the said policy the OP insurer is liable to pay to the complainant, inter alia, claims relating to Material damage and Business Interruption.

3. Brief facts of the case and the contentions raised by Advocate Ms. Sulekha Raman on behalf of the complainant, are discussed in the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by this Commission, which is reproduced below:

“1. The complainant is a State Corporation engaged in Power Generation in the State of Gujarat. The complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party Insurance Company that has declined to indemnify the claim set up by the complainant in respect of the damage to the tooth of the Gear Shaft of the Load Gear Box of a 32 megawatt box Turbine GT#1 installed at Power Station No. 1 at Vadodara in Gujarat. The rejection was communicated through a registered letter dispatched by the Surveyor dated 27.04.2010 that was reaffirmed by the Insurance Company through its communication dated 04.08.2010. The fractured tooth of the load speed shaft of the turbine has been depicted in a photograph filed by the Insurance Company along with its reply and is extracted hereinunder:

2. Learned counsel for the complainant Ms. Surekha Raman advanced her submissions today and we have heard her in order to proceed with the matter with the consent of Mr. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, who has appeared online and prayed that he may be granted an adjournment of three weeks to enable him to overcome his personal indisposition and then assist the Bench accordingly.

3. While advancing her submissions, learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant Corporation has installed a couple of turbines and the present dispute relates to the Gear Box of the Gas Turbine which stood insured under an Industrial All Risks Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 701,91,00,000/-. The claim made under the said policy is for the damage aforesaid as well as the loss due to business interruption. A copy of the policy, the duration whereof was from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 has been filed on record.

4. prior to policy the insurance is stated to have been with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

5. According to the complainant, the Gas Turbine remains almost in continuous operation, and as an internal practice of maintenance and upkeep, the turbine is generally serviced after 48000 fired hours. According to the learned counsel, the turbine had experienced a couple of sudden load throwoffs during the duration of the policy, but since there was no deficit in the operations of the turbine or the production, the same was being operated as according to the learned counsel, turbines cannot be shut down on some mathematical precision and are put off as and when the complainant gets the opportunity or as per need keeping in view the requirement of supply and distribution of the electricity in the State. The submission is that for the purpose of maintenance, shut downs are carried out as per the exigency and need of power supply in the State. Le