The burden of proving the applicability of an insurance exclusionary clause lies squarely on the insurer; this requires producing cogent expert evidence to establish the event specifically constitutes a cause for exclusion, alongside proof that such terms were clearly communicated to the insured at inception.

JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Panchkula (‘State Commission’) dated 09.10.2017 in FA No. 772/2016 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (‘District Forum’) order dated 15.07.2016 which partly allowed the complaint.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing lead-acid batteries for earning his livelihood under a proprietorship firm named and styled as M/s. Chetan Electronics, at VPO Pharal, District Kaithal. He purchased an Air Testing Machine from Industrial Automation, Rajpura for Rs.6,00,000 vide bill dated 09.11.2013. This machine was financed by OP-2 and, at the time of availing the loan, OP-2 got the said machine insured with OP-1 vide Policy No.110705/11/13/11/00000265, valid from 17.12.2013 to 16.12.2014. During the midnight of 15/16.07.2014, a sudden fire broke out in the complainant’s unit and, as a result, the Air Testing Machine along with other battery charger machines and five batteries were completely destroyed. The complainant informed the OPs about the incident and lodged a DDR at Police Station Pundri on 20.07.2015. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim with OP-1. However, OP-1 repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service against the OPs, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking insured amount of Rs.6,00,000 along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000 towards grave mental and physical harassment and Rs. 55,000 litigation costs.

4. Upon notice, OP-1 appeared before the District Forum, whereas OP-2 failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.10.2015. OP-1 filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability, lack of cause of action, and locus standi of the complainant. It was further contended that he concealed true and material facts. It is OP-1’s case that the policy issued to the complainant was a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, which specifically contains the following exclusion clause:

“Loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting arising from or occasioned by overrunning, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self-heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning included); provided that this exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other property which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up.”

5. On the aforesaid exclusion clause, OP-1 contended that the complainant is not entitled to any claim under the policy and that her has no insurable interest or locus standi to file this complaint. It was further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. On merits, all the averments made in the complaint were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 15.07.2016 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:-

“7. From the ple