BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR SAHKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. Vs. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE FUND, DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MAHARASHTRA STATE GRIHA NIRMAN BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for R-1 had last appeared in this matter on 19.09.2018. Thereafter no one appeared for R-1 on 23.10.2018, 13.083.2019 and 29.08.2019. A letter was circulated by the learned counsel for R-1 on 29.08.2019 seeking adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 31.01.2020. In the meanwhile this matter was also listed before the Circuit Bench at Mumbai on 12.12.2019 after notice to the parties but no one was present for the respondents even before the Circuit Bench. As far as R-2 is concerned it has never appeared in this matter despite service upon it. This is an old appeal having been instituted in the year 2013. Therefore, I see no justification for adjourning the matter when neither anyone is present for the respondents nor have they made any request seeking adjournment. I have, therefore, heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The complainant/appellant company was running a sugar factory and had obtained an insurance policy which covered the risk of plant and machinery as well as the stock of sugar kept in the factory. The policy was taken for the period from 29.11.2007 to 29.11.2008. On 25.04.2008 during subsistence of the insurance policy, a truck was taken inside the godown number 2 of the complainant for loading the sugar bags in the said truck. When the truck was inside the godown and sugar bags were loaded on it there was a sudden spark from the exhaust silencer of the truck. The said spark having fallen on the sugar bags, the said bags caught fire. Efforts were made to douse the fire and fire brigade was called. Water was sprayed by the fire brigade in order to extinguish the fire. The case of the complainant is that it has suffered huge loss on account of loss and damage of sugar, the total loss suffered by the complainant being Rs. 45,95,794/-. Claim for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy was lodged by the appellant/complainant with the insurer. A surveyor was appointed by the insurer to inspect the godown, to verify the claim and assess the loss. The surveyor, vide his report dated 21.03.2010, assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 7,60,000/- but did not recommend any reimbursement to the complainant. The surveyor gave the following reasons for denying reimbursement to the complainant:-

(3.) The claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 10.08.2010 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under