State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.L.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/356/2019
B.L.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - C/o K.L. Gupta, 2nd Floor, opp. Chandan Hospital, Alankar Hotel Lane
Lashkar, Gwalior - 474 009(MP),WEST BENGAL.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - Division no. - IX, 3rd Floor, 8, India Exchange Place, Kolkata - 700
001.,WEST BENGAL.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
B.L.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Sujoy Kr. Basu (Advocate)
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Mr. Shyamal Sengupta. (Advocate)
DATED: 10/03/2026
ORDER
Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member The instant complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the Complainant/BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd. against the OP/National Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant is a unit of BLA group of companies and purchased one contractors plant and machinery policy (CPM Policy) bearing no. 10090044171000195 having validity from 09.01.2018 to 08.01.2019 from the OP for insurance coverage of Rs.2,24,00,000/- for coal crusher retaining wall and skid mounted of semi mobile coal crushing plant having system capacity 800 tons per hour, L & T Make machine S.N. : 006-1238 & 17-01-3639, Year of manufacture- 2016. The Insurance coverage also includes CPM basic cover to skid mounted TPH + Wall + conveyor belt with earth Quack, STFI, Terrorism etc. On 01.05.2018 at about 11:15 P.M. the subject machine/the TP Dozer met with an accident at plant side Khadia, Singrauli (MP) which hit the wall of the coal crusher to save the collision of a tipper due to which the wall of coal crusher was badly damaged. It was intimated to the OP Company and the complainant submitted the claim form with a request to depute the surveyor for inspection and report. The OP Company appointed Sri Sanjoy Kumar Srivastava as the surveyor who visited the site on 05.05.2018 and 15.06.2018. The Complainant supplied all the documents with regard to the subject claim. The retaining wall was made of stone bolders duly supplied with RCC Columns & Beams etc. One side of the aforesaid wall is ramp and other side is vertically straight. The retaining wall was broken from its top portion, cracked different portion and the strength of the wall became poor. During processing the crusher heavy load was applied in the aforesaid retaining wall by loaded truck of coal etc. The retaining wall was beyond the scope of repairing and it required replacement with new retaining wall. The area safety officer of Northern Coal Field Limited, Khadia Project also inspected the retaining wall and reported the same. He advised the Complainant for shifting the crusher plant and all machinery from aforesaid site to new site. The retaining wall was demolished by the Complainant in presence of the surveyor. The Complainant submitted the estimate being reference no. 2018/IND-3793/MUM/AS/QS-3 dated 23.05.2018 for Rs. 11,19,125.64P of M/S Macca Ferri Environmental Solution Private Limited, Gurgaon for supply of materials and estimate reference no. Quo/Uni0318/09 dated 05.06.2018 for Rs. 33,63,354/- of M/S United Construction, Pune for labour charges etc. The aforesaid estimates were for construction of new retaining wall with a superior quality in respect of old damaged retaining wall. The Complainant also submitted the estimate of Sri M.K. Tiwary for Rs. 33,50,076/- for actual construction of complete retaining wall. The Complainant has constructed the retaining wall by the local contractor and purchased the material from local supplier as per aforesaid estimate and submitted the bill before the OP. The surveyor vide his mail dated 02.10.2018 informed the Complainant that the report was prepared and the final assessment of loss was considered as Rs. 23,97,000/-. Thereafter, the surveyor sent a mail dated 11.03.2019 with a request to provide FIR of the aforesaid accident and to explain the reason, if not lodged. The Complainant replied through e-mail dated 12.03.2019 that the accident was informed to the Northern Coal Field Limited, Khadia Project and they have inspected and issued them a letter to shift the crusher. Since no death or injury took place or any T.P property damaged no FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the OP vide their mail dated 12.03.2019 informed the Complainant that FIR is mandatory. Then the Complainant replied to the aforesaid mail dated 12.03.2019 by their mail dated 14.03.2019 with a request to settle the claim. The OP company remained silent and did not pay the legitimate claim of the complainant. Moreover, the OP company took dilatory tactics and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP company and therefore, the complaint has been filed with the direction upon OP in favour of the Complainant for payment of Rs. 35,50,076/- on account of loss of coal crusher retaining wall along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost.
The sole OP filed the written version and to contest the case. In their written version the OP denied all material allegations inter alia stated that the complainant has taken a CPM policy on going through the rules and regulations. The policy was issued best on the declaration of the complainant mentioned in the proposal form. Subsequently, it was observed that the wall was nothing but a retaining wall and that was not an integral part of the crushing plant or conveyor belt. Therefore, the wall falls under owner's surrounding property and does not fall under the scope of the coverage of the policy. The truth of the statement and answers in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the OP to make payment under this policy.
The OP has further stated in their written version that it is astonishing that a case of an accident was not reported to police. On the contrary complainant informed the matter to the NCL, Khadia who are the principal of the project and with their consent and direction the wall was demolished and subsequently erected on a different place. Hence, it is proved that the wall was the property of NCL and the Complainant has no insurable interest in the subject matter. The complainant has not made the NCL a party. A query was raised to surveyor with regard to investigation whether the retaining wall was integral part of plant and machinery and the surveyor was replied on 15.03.2019 which was received by the OP on 10.05.2019. Thereafter, the query was raised with regard to cause of loss of claim and identification of the TP dozer which was replied by the surveyor on 28.06.2019 and received by the OP on 01.07.2019. On receipt of final clarification the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 31.07.2019. The OP was in continuous contact with surveyor thus, it is proved that the OP Company was not sitting idle and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The claim is frivolous and therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint since the case is not maintainable due to willful misrepresentation committed by the Complainant. The OP has also prayed for imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
At the time of final hearing Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has stated that the accident took place on 01.05.2018 at 11:15 P.M. at the plant site, Khadia. Accordingly, the claim was lodged and thereafter surveyor inspected the site on 05.05.2018 and 19.05.2018. The surveyor also estimated the loss amounting to Rs.33,50,076/-.
Further the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has stated that the allegation of the OP that the wall is beyond the scope of insurance coverage is not true. He drew our attention by showing the running page 14 of the petition of complaint wherefrom it appears that basic cover which is annexed as where it is written as follows:
Sl. No. Coverage Coverage Sum assured
Description
1 Basic Cover CPM COVER Rs.
TO SKID 2,24,00,000.00
MOUNTED
SEMI MOBILE
COAL
CRUSHING
PLANT
HAVING
SYSTEM
CAPACITY 800
TPH + WALL +
CONVEYOR
BELT WITH
EQ, STFI,
TERRORISM,
TPL OSP &
FLOATER
Excess: AS PER POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AS PER CPM POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
AS PER CPM POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
Additional Information: CPM COVER TO SKID
MOUNTD SEMI MOBILE CAL CRUSHI8NG PLANT
HAVING SYSTEM CAPACITY 800 TPH
+WALL+CONVEYOR BELT, MACHINE No.006-1238
& 17-01-3639, MAKER-LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,
YEAR OF MAKE-2016
2. Third Party TP COVER Rs. 2,00,000.00
Liability
Excess:
Additional Information: NA
3. Owner's OSP Cover Rs.
Surrounding
2,00,000.00
Property
Excess:
Additional Information: NA
Therefore, the damaged wall and the loss incurred for the same is under the insurance coverage. Moreover, the OP has not settled the claim till the date of filing of the case. They have sent the repudiation letter on 31.07.2019 with their written version only. It is settled principle of law that as per terms of insurance policy the Insurance Company should have informed the insured whether the claim is payable or repudiated within 30 days from the date of receiving of the claim form but here, there is inordinate delay in repudiation of the claim Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has cited the following Judgments:
1. 2010 (2) CPR 368 National Commission Where Surveyor appointed by Insurance Co. Gave detailed report and cogent reasons for assessment of loss of insured articles, award of compensation on basis of such report would be proper and just.
2. 2021 (1) CPR 233 National Commission Surveyor's report is a document of tremendous importance and cannot be ignored in settling insurance claim.
3. 2019 (2) CPR 820 National Commission Insurer cannot be allowed to take a stand which is not mentioned in the repudiation letter.
4. 2017 (2) CPR334 National Commission Insurer is bound to accept or reject claim within 30 days from the receipt of survey report.
Ld. Counsel for the OP has stated that the insurance was for CPM policy. The policy was issued based on the declaration of the complainant. He drew our attention by showing the proposal form which is annexed as A13 with their written version. But the retaining wall does not come within the scope and cover of CPM policy. He also drew our attention by showing page no. A37 annexed with the written version where owner's surrounding property has been mentioned. In the instant case the complainant has not purchased the policy in respect of owner's surrounding property. The retaining wall, which was damaged was the property of the NCL which is beyond the coverage of the policy in question. If the complainant took the policy along with owner's surrounding property then the OP must have paid the amount towards the instant loss.
On the point of delay in sending the repudiation letter Ld. Counsel for the OP has stated that the last clarification was received from the surveyor on 01.07.2019 and the claim was repudiated on 31.07.2019 i.e. within 30 days from the date of last clarification. Therefore, the case should be dismissed with limini with cost. Ld. Counsel for the OPs cited the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Punnen Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record it is admitted fact that the Complainant is a unit of BLA Group of Companies and the Complainant purchased one CPM Policy bearing no. 10090044171000195 having validity from 09.01.2018 to 08.01.2019 from the OP for insurance coverage of 2,24,00,000/-. It is also admitted fact that on 01.05.2018 the subject machine met with an accident at the plant side Khadia which hit the wall of the coal crusher. It is also not denied by the OPs that the wall of the coal crusher was damaged badly. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged claim and the surveyor was appointed by the OPs. Ultimately, OPs repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 31.07.2019 with the reason that retaining wall was not integral part of plant and machinery. Now, the question is whether the OPs are liable to pay the insurance claim lodged by the Complainant or not.
The policy was issued based on the declaration of the insured that the SKID MOUNTED SEMP MOBILE COAL CRUSHING PLANT HAVING SYSTEM CAPACITY 800 TPH + WALL +CONVEYOR BELT is a single Integral unit. The retaining wall is not an integral part of the machine The cause of loss mentioned by Insured is Impact Damage due to unknown vehicle which has not originated from the machine itself, hence the claim under owner's surrounding property has been repudiated. To get the claim the insured ought to have taken the owner's surrounding property.
As per policy for owner surrounding property that the policy would be extended to cover loss or damage to property located at or adjacent to the site and belongings to or held in care custody, control of the principal(s) or the contractor(s) if occurring directly due to damage of items mentioned in the schedule while at rest or in views for construction or erection during period of policy. To get the coverage of owner surrounding property the complainant had to play extra premium amount and in that case for the owner surrounding property was attached to and forming part of the policy in question. Therefore, it is evident that the damaged wall was beyond the coverage of insurance.
The complainant has misrepresented the facts in the proposal form and thereby absolves the insurance company of any liability as the truth of the statement was condition precedent to any liability of insurance company. We refer condition 3D of the policy in question:
"3 CONDITIONS .....
d. the due observance And fulfilment of the terms, provisions and conditions of an endorsement of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the Insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this Policy."
It is pertinent to mention that the insurance company always issues the policy on the basis of Uberrimae Fidei i.e. on utmost good faith.
The Judgments cited by the Complainant are not relevant with the present case since the damaged wall was beyond the scope of the insurance coverage in question.
In view of the above discussion it is evident from the record that the damaged wall was not under the coverage of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to substantiate the case and as such the case fails.
Hence, it is, ORDERED That the Complaint Case being no. CC/356/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest. However, there is no Order as to costs.
Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
..................
AJEYA MATILAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................
SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER