VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed by the Deputy Director of Visakhapatnam Port Trust against the opposite party Insurance Company seeking reimbursement of the insurance claim amount of Rs.23,65,309/-, also for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest thereon and also expenses and costs to a tune of Rs.21,000/-.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils (Material damage) Policy from the opposite party so as to cover the risk of damage to the electronic equipments of Information Technology Division of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The policy was effective from 10th March, 2004 up to 23rd February, 2005. On payment of premium, policy was issued. The electronic equipment of the establishment was insured under the policy and it was kept under constant vigil and surveillance of the staff regularly. As the matter stood thus, on 7th June, 2004 and 28th June, 2004, the insured electronic equipment such as building switches, work group switches were burnt and damaged due to lightening that occurred in the port area at about 12.40 hrs. On 7th June, 2004 and 14.40 hours on 28th June, 2004 causing loss to a tune of Rs.23,65,309/-. The damage was immediately informed to the opposite party by sending fax on the same date itself and the claim was made to the opposite party on the same date furnishing all the relevant material. A surveyor was appointed to assess the damage caused to the insured equipment who in turn had submitted non-speaking report on 13.11.2004. Subsequently, a letter dated 8th December, 2004 which was received on 29th December, 2004 was sent by the opposite party after a long gap of six months informing that as per the General Exclusion No. 7 of the policy the reported loss falls out of scope of the policy and in view of the same the matter is closed as No claim . While admitting that the loss caused was due to lightening, it is contended that the repudiation of the claim made by the opposite party is vague and untenable and had no nexus to the exclusion clause no. 7. The stand taken by the opposite party is totally mischievous to avoid reimbursement of the claim. Further the opposite party also has suppressed the surveyors report dated 13.11.2004 and that as per the Insurance Regulations and Development Authority Guidelines, the opposite party has to inform to the insured within one month from the date of receipt of the report of the surveyor. The act or omission amounts to deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite party filed its written version denying the allegations and has taken the stand that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer on the basis of its pleadings and that no case is made out for the consumer dispute nor in respect of the alleged claim. Both the complainant and the opposite party are public undertakings so it is mandatory for the clearance of litigation to be obtained prior to the filing of the legal proceedings before any Forum or Court. The Government of India has evolved a procedure in respect of Government litigation and that permission is to be taken which is mandatory before proceeding to any court or Tribunal. First of all, it should be examined by the Committee and clearance is to be obtained for fling the litigation. The A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any claim or proceed with the case on hand. The responsibility is cast upon the complainant seeking clearance from the Central Government before filing the case before the State Commission. It is made clear in the decision of the Apex Court reported in M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another VS. Collector of Central Excise JT 1991 (4) SC 158. The complainant had not filed any such application before the competent authority seeking permission as such the complaint is liable to be rejected and in this regard the opposite party had filed CAIA 116/2007 for rejecting the complaint. The complainant is required to produce the copies of the papers required to be submitted , i.e., notice of claim or submission of the documents of the alleged damage caused to the insured items on 07.06.2004. So also, as to the issuance of notice of claim or submission of the documents of the alleged damage caused to the insured items on 28.06.2004. Following the procedure a surveyor was appointed who submitted a report and considering the same the claim was repudiated as per Exclusion Clause no. 7 of the terms and conditions of the policy and the repudiation was within a reasonable time. The opposite party has to attend to several claims of the Department, as such, it takes sufficient time for attending to the claims.