Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The letter of repudiation dated 27.5.97 issued by OP reads as follows:

"We have scrutinised all the relevant documents in the above claim. From a careful consideration of the material papers including the Final Survey Report dated 23.4.97 submitted by the independent Surveyors M/s. Sunder Raman & Associates, it is seen that the proximate cause for the damage and loss is mechanical failure consequent to the Turbine reaching undamped critical speed following the reduction on its load due to stoppage of crushing, and running at the same speed for a longer period.
It is further seen that the occurrence of damage is not of electrical origin or by fire but was purely due to a mechanical breakdown wherein due to the abnormal vibration caused by the Turbine running at undamped critical speed for a long period rubbing of the Turbine Rotor on the casing and the rotor of the generator on the stator had occurred resulting in thick sparking and followed by extensive damage to the Turbine assembly, Gear Box casing, Generator Rotor, Excitor etc. In as much as the loss had not been caused by fire or any of the other causes covered by the Policy and since mechanical breakdown, the proximate cause for this damage, does not fall under the purview of a Fire 'C' Policy, we REGRET out inability to proceed further with the CLAIM."
7.15 We have also observed that the Insured, on his own, have upgraded the capacity of TG Set without any reference to the Manufacturer nor have informed the Insurers about the same, which may please be noted by the Insurers.
7.16 Thus, based on our inspection, technical analysis on the cause of loss, review of the various Failure Reports offered by the Insured, it has become evident and clear that the proximate cause for this damage does not fall under the purview of Fire 'C' Policy and in our opinion the damage has occurred essentially due to a mechanical failure. Thus, the Claims does not entail admittance."

16. This clearly typifies that had there been fire - it would have left us 'tell - tale' marks which are conspicuous by their absence. These observations of the Surveyor have not been rebutted in any manner.

17. We have also seen the internal report prepared by the complainant. Immediate witness was the turbine operator and next in line was Junior Engineer on duty. How they describe the incident is that they observed sparking and heavy blasting sound. Word 'Fire', they allegedly mention at the end. In the totality of the facts and material brought on record by the parties, we are inclined to believe that it was a case of mechanical failure following the reduction of load on Turbine, because of stoppage of crushing activity, the Governor had failed to regulate the speed of Turbine. In our view the complainant has failed to rebut by way of any expert evidence, the reasons for damage as expounded by the surveyor duly supported by Expert evidence as also complainant has failed to prove by any concrete evidence or proof that it was a case of fire started by the bursting of the bulb leading to chain of events resulting in the reported loss. This is not proved to be even a proximate cause of loss. The two key witness, Turbine Operator and Junior Engineer do not say so even as per the internal enquiry of the complainant. Finding of this report also does not say a word on any nexus between the alleged bursting of the bulb and the damage. The finding of internal inquiry report reads as follows: