SUSHEELA BAI PANDEY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.06.2019 and the following Order was passed:

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that late Dharam Singh Pandey (husband of the complainant) had purchased a JCB for Rs. 20,10,000/- and a Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy was taken for a period of 30.12.2011 to 29.12.2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the JCB machine in question was Rs. 22,80,000/- and the premium paid was Rs. 15,000/-. During the subsistence of the policy, on 19.04.2012, the JCB machine was used at a work site in village Kulhadgaon, near Benur, at that time some naxalites had set the JCB on fire. The insured gave telephonic intimation of the incidence to the OP-Ins. Co. and the matter was reported to Police Station, Benur on 21.04.2012. Thereafter, the surveyor appointed by the OP-Ins. Co. assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs. 15,45,750/-. The OP - Ins. Co. in repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the worksite was different to the policy schedule. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of claim, complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a joint written statement. It was contended that the JCB machine was insured only for its working place i.e. Bade Dongar. Shri Mohit Kumar, the Spot Surveyor appointed by the OPs in his report mentioned that the accident happened in the territorial jurisdiction of Narainpur District. The distance between the place of incident and Benur is 3.5 km. In the insurance policy issued by the OPs, the working place is mentioned as Bade Dongar. The machine in question was engaged in the road construction work conducted by a contractor but the same was never disclosed. The Contractor's Certificate was also not filed. The machine was burnt by naxalites. Thus as per the exclusion clause of the insurance policy, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.