SHREE CEMENT LTD Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Complaint is filed under Sec. 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) Case of the Complainant is that it is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement. Opposite Party No.1 is Insurance Company having its registered Office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 and Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 are Regional and Branch Offices respectively of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant installed heavy Roller Press for crushing/grinding raw material for manufacturing cement. In order to insure the said rollers, the Complainants took 'Industrial All Risk Policy No.242103/11/2007/00059' covering the risk of fire, machinery break down and FLOP (Fire Loss of Profit). The sum insured was Rs.114,87,28,000.00 and the Policy was valid from 26/5/2006 to 25/5/2007.

(3.) On 22/5/2007, Engineer Incharge of the Complainant observed abnormal sound from the fixed roller. Thereafter, the plant was immediately stopped for inspection and during inspection set material (clinker powder) was seen on the non-drive end side of fixed roller and water leakage was also seen from the sealed area. After cleaning the area, cracks were seen on the shaft surface through which water was leaking. On further inspection, circumferential crack was seen, which was visible with naked eyes, confirming the crack through the shaft wall. On 22/5/2007 itself, the Complainant intimated Opposite Party No.2 over phone and the Complainant was advised to lodge their claim. The Complainant lodged claim, vide letter dtd. 22/5/2007, with Opposite Party No.2 and also sent a copy to Opposite Party No.3. In the said letter, the Complainant requested for appointment of a Surveyor, for assessment of loss. Opposite Party No.1 appointed M/s Insurance Technical Services, as Surveyors for conducting survey and assessment of loss, who visited the factory site on 25/5/2007 and 26/5/2007 and, vide letter dtd. 26/5/2007, asked the Complainant to furnish certain documents/information which the Complainant had already provided. The Complainant, however, again provided the documents/information sought by the Surveyor. The Complainant, vide letter dtd. 20/10/2008, followed by reminder dtd. 25/3/2009, requested the Opposite Parties to settle the claim expeditiously. The Surveyor, vide email dtd. 3/5/2009, again sought further documents which were supplied by the Complainant, vide letter dtd. 7/5/2009. The Surveyor, vide emails dtd. 7/2/2011 and 4/10/2011, again asked for more documents, which were supplied by the Complainant, with replies dtd. 4/3/2011 and 15/10/2011 respectively. To the utter shock of the Complainant, letter dtd. 19/10/2012 was received from Opposite Party No.2 stating that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that break down took place due to deterioration over a period of time. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer: -