ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER

1.      This complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) has been filed seeking the settlement of claim filed with the opposite party with compensation alleging deficiency in service.

2.     The complainant has stated that he had obtained a certificate of stability for the building of the cold storage from a Chartered Engineer and Architect on 07.12.2009 prior to renewal of the licence of the cold storage for the period 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 under the UP Cold Storage Act, 1976 issued by the Licensing Authority (Cold Storage) & District Magistrate, Mahamayanagar (Hathras), UP. He had obtained 6 valid insurance policies including for Standard Fire & Special Perils (SPSP), Deterioration of Stock (Potatoes) and Plant and Machinery and has stated that these covered the building, plant and machinery and stocks. On 18.05.2010 around 9.30 pm the ammonia gas compressor exploded in the cold storage resulting in the death of one employee and the collapse of the building causing extensive damage to the potatoes stored in the cold storage. A claim was lodged with the opposite party for Rs.2,65,44,550/- comprising of Rs.41,73,000/- for plant and machinery, Rs.1,40,14,550/- for building, Rs.72,00,000/- for potato stock, Rs.7,35,000/- for clearing of site and Rs.4,22,000/- for loss in leakage of ammonia gas. However, the claim was repudiated as a “No Claim” by the opposite party on the basis of the Surveyor’s report vide letter dated 17.06.2011. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and approached this Commission with the following prayer:

a.       Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,65,44,550/- as claim under 6 policies covers taken from the opposite party when during their continuation the damage accident has taken place;

b.       Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service in delay and repudiation of the claim which has caused mental agony, physical harassment and suffering to the complainant resulting in closure of the business of cold storage of the complainant;

c.       Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as costs of the litigation;

d.       Pass search any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      Resisting the complaint by way of a written statement, the opposite party denied the averments of the complainant. It was contended that upon receipt of information of the incident of the blast at the cold storage on 18.05.2010, it had deputed a Spot Surveyor, Pradeep Potdar who, after visiting the site, submitted a preliminary report stating that chambers of the cold storage constructed in 1981 and 1988 had been recently modified and that documents requested from complainant on 21.05.2010 had not been supplied. Thereafter, opposite party appointed M/s Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. as the final Surveyor on 19.06.2010. Following correspondence with the complainant seeking information and documents between 29.06.2010 and 30.09.2010 and deputing a structural engineer (Vaibhav Garg) for inspection, the Surveyor submitted a Final Report dated 16.05.2011 concluding that there was no event such as a storm or lightening on 18.05.2010 and that the recently constructed RCC roof in the cold storage had collapsed due to lack of proper jointing of columns. Consequently, there was no liability on the opposite party and, therefore, it was a case of ‘No Claim’. For theoretical purposes, loss was estimated at Rs.43,58,347/-.

4.      The claim of the complainant was accordingly repudiated by the opposite party vide letter date 17.06.2011 on the grounds that (i) the claim against the loss of the building was not admissible as it was not covered under a ‘peril’ defined under the Policy since the collapse of the building was attributable to a structural defect, (ii) the claim for machinery was inadmissible in view of the fa