National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Atm Constructions vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 19 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/12/2014 in Complaint No. 31/2013 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. M/S. ATM CONSTRUCTIONS THROUGH MR. SANTOSH MAHAPATRA, S/O. SHRI AGADHU, (PARTNER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY)ADDRESS: NEAR GAYATRI MANDIR, DANTEWADA CHHATTISGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE) 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KRISHNA COMPLEX, KUTCHERY CHOWK, RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mohd. Anis-Ur-Rehman, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
Dated : 19 Apr 2016 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant purchased an excavator make Tata Hitachi for a consideration of Rs. 32,50,000/- and got the same insured for the period from 11.04.2011 to 10.02.2012. The aforesaid excavator was engaged in construction of road near Village Parcheli, in the jurisdiction of P.S. Katekaliyan, District South Bastar, Dantewada. Some persons allegedly stopped the construction work on the aforesaid site and torched the excavator. The complainant lodged a claim with the respondent in terms of the insurance policy which it had taken. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.11.2012 which to the extent, reads as under:
On perusal of claim papers, it is clearly noted that the said Excavator bearing Sl. No. 1101-4153 was torched by Naxals at the project site Village Pacheli.
Our policy issued to M/s. Telcon and you as a customer of Telcon, excludes losses, interalia arising out of Civil Commotion, conspiracy, confiscation, commandeering a group of malicious person or persons acting on behalf of or in connection with any political organization, etc. etc. The loss to the above mentioned Excavator clearly falls under the above said exclusion.
In view of the above, we regret our inability to admit the claim.
2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.
3. Vide order dated 04.12.2014, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the loss of the excavator fell under an exclusion clause contained in the insurance policy. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of its complaint, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission.
4. The insurance policy taken by the petitioner, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
Exceptions-
The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of-
Note:- This does not apply to Machineries used in Tunneling works.
I) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or war like operation (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion revolution insurrection, mutiny, civil commotion, military or usurped power, martial law, conspiracy, confiscation commandeering a group of malicious person or persons acting on behalf of or in connection with any political organisation. Requisition or destruction or damage by order of any Government de jure or de facto or by any public, municipal or local authority.
It would be seen from a scrutiny of the aforesaid exclusion clause that the insurer is not liable in a case where the loss occurs inter-alia due to commandeering a group of malicious persons or persons acting on behalf of or in connection with any political organisation.
5. A perusal of the report of the surveyor shows that the excavator in question was destroyed by Naxalites. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the hand of Naxalites in the destruction of the excavator, in the letter available on page no. 71 of the paperbook which the complainant/petitioner itself had sent to the insurer, it was alleged that the excavator was burnt by Naxalites on 19.12.2011. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 18.04.2013 to the insurer. In para 2 of the said notice, it was specifically alleged that the petitioner had lodged a claim on account of total loss of the excavator due to Naxalite attack on 19.12.2011. Thus, it was petitioner's own case throughout that the excavator had been destroyed by Naxalites in an attack on 19.12.2011. The destruction by Naxalites in my opinion, would certainly be an act committed by a commandeering group of malicious person, if it is assumed that they did not have any connection with a political organisation. Consequently, the aforesaid loss was not covered under the insurance policy taken by the petitioner. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, was eminently justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission. I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER