BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

C.C.NO.71 OF 2010

Between:

M/s Bollineni Castings and Steel Ltd.,
(formerly M/s B.Seenaiah and Compnay
(Projects Ltd.,) having its works at Suryapalem
Village, Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District
and having its registered office at 6-2-913/914
1^st Floor, Progressive Towers, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad-004 rep. by its Executive Director
N.Babu Rao ( As per orders dt.19.9.2001
in CCIA No.126/20)

                                                                        Complainant

        A N D

1.   Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
having its registered and Head Office at Dare House
2^nd Floor NSC Bose Road, Chennai-001 rep. by
its Managing Director

2.   Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
having its Branch Office at 6-3-698/3, 1^st Floor
Venkat Plaza-Ii, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-082
rep. by its Regional Manager

                                                                        Opposite parties

Counsel for the Complainant          M/s K.N.Lakshmi

Counsel for the opposite parties     M/s A.Ramakrishna Reddy

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

  TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.            The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay differential cost of `80,75,142/- under insurance policy bearing number EMB/00000/494/000/01 and `5.00 lakh towards compensation and interest @18% p.a. from 18.08.2008 till the date of filling the complaint and costs of the complaint.

2.             The averments of the complaint are that the complainant company is engaged in power generation project like using biomass as the main output and possesses power generation unit with capacity of 7.5 MW at Suryapalem village, Podalkauru Mandal, Nellore District. The breakdown of the machinery would cause total breakdown of the Unit and consequently it adversely affects power generation. The complainant-company insured the machinery under two insurance policies,”Machinary breakdown insurance policy” and ‘Machinary Loss of Profit Policy’. The first mentioned policy covers the risk on machinery and its material. The second policy covers loss of profit arising out of breakdown of the machinery. The complaint is filed pertaining to dispute under second policy. The claim under MB policy was settled and there is no any dispute pertaining to it.

3.             The complainant-company has been obtaining the insurance policies from the opposite parties every year. The complainant-company obtained MB policy bearing number EB/000000/493/000/01 for the period from 1.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 and the MLOP policy for the same period by paying premia of `6,60,003/- and `5,57,045/- respectively. There was breakdown in the Unit of the complainant-company on 15.07.2007 to the 7.5 MV Turbo generator set which was incorporated in the list of machinery in the schedule of the policy. The breakdown of the generator was intimated to the second opposite party. The second opposite party deputed M/s Puri Crawford and Associates India Pvt. Ltd to assess the loss and damage caused to the machinery. The surveyor submitted interim report on 20.12.2007 recommending release of ‘on account payment’ totaling to `1,40,00,000/-