ORDER

DR.INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1.       The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP(s) to pay:-

2.       Notice was issued to the OP.  Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. 

3.       It is averred/stated in the Complaint that: -

“STANDARD FIRE AND SPECIAL PERILS POLICY” paying a premium of Rs.40,500/- for the sum insured of Rs.5.0 crore and had paid, on the Insurer’s demand, further premiums of Rs.7,875/- Rs.9,375/- and Rs.6,000/-, thus aggregating a sum of Rs.23,250/-, on the same insured sum towards “ADD ON COVERS” OF (i) SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION AND (ii) STFI Cover and (iii) EARTHQUAKE respectively. 

4.       The OP in their written statement/reply stated that the complainant obtained standard fire special perils policy bearing No. 19130331118P101192468.  The policy was valid from 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019.  On 06.08.2018 during the evening hours, they noticed smoke coming out of the molasses tank No. 15 located at the open yard within the factory premises.  The OP further stated that within the next few days it was noticed that the level of molasses rising in the tank due to increase in volume and eventually it started to boil/bubbling on account of spontaneous combustion.  The complainant tried to bring down the temperature of the molasses by adding water.  It did not, however, help, and the molasses continued to vent out.  This process continued for the next two days despite taking all possible measures, the molasses could not be saved.  The entire mass of molasses got crystalized and turned into a solid charred mass of black sugar.  The OP appointed a surveyor.  On detail examination of the site and other material information, the surveyor concluded the following:

5.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the Complaint, based on their Complaint/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.       Relying on the judgment of this Commission in Murli Agro Products Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Original Petition No. 253 of 1999, decided on 10.12.2004) [I (2005) CPJ 1 NC] the Complainant argued that in Para 6 of the Written Statement the O.P. admits the contents of Para 9 of the Complaint wherein it is averred that the OP’s Surveyors have opined that the loss of goods complained of by the Complainant is on account of spontaneous combustion, but then takes a view that although spontaneous combustion is a covered peril under the Fire Policy issued by the OP the Claim is to be repudiated because fire per se had not taken place despite the Complainant having paid additional premium specifically to cover the peril of spontaneous combustion. Such dishonest contention by insurer has been repeatedly dealt with by this Hon’ble Commission which has rejected the false arguments to hold that once the insured has paid additional premium for the peril of spontaneous combustion in the Fire Policy it has bought, the question of repudiation on the ground of fire not accompanying the burning of the insured goods does not arise.  Complainant contended that surveyors have confirmed the quantum of goods lost by the complainant in the fires but have wrongly opined that the cost price of the goods will be considered for the purpose of evaluating the loss, when, it is a well settled principle of law that the value of the loss is to be worked out on the basis of the market price of goods, which the complainant has proved on record by documents that have not been denied.  The OP on the other hand has argued that the combustion has not been accompanied by any fire-flame.  The claim of complainant has been repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 09.05.2019 stating that lia