Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for short), which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

Complainant/respondent had taken a Fire Policy C in the name of M/s Khandelwal Mineral Industries, hypothecated to the Bank of India, covering stock of Acid slurry/LABSA, tanks platform and building/shed, etc. During the validity of the Policy, the respondent reported to the petitioner that a PVC container filled with LABSA kept in the godown leaked totally on 17.04.2000 and spread over the godown and ground due to the leaking of the container.

 

On being reported, the petitioner appointed a Chartered Engineer Surveyor for inspection and assessment of loss who found that the container had broken from the height of about 4 feet from the bottom surface because of which LABSA had leaked out. Surveyor came to the conclusion that the cause of loss was either the inferior quality of tank design or it could not bear the surface tension/centrifugal force of LABSA chemical or it might have been kept in the tilting position and, therefore, force could have sustained by certain portion of circumference that the tanker volume could not sustain the entire load. The Surveyor found that the tank had broken due to excessive load.

     

The Surveyor in his Report, while making the details of the loss, found as under: -

 
Details of loss:
It is revealed by the undersigned that one of PVC containers having the capacity of 10,000 Kg. was lying in broken pieces condition. Container was broken from the height of about four feet from its bottom surface. Content of chemical LABSA totally leaked away and spreadover the godown and as well as flown away in the ground. As discussed with the insured regarding cause of loss it is stated that they could not ascertain the cause of leakage. At the time of loss the godown shutters were closed and were not locked by the insured. Later on they have also informed to Insurers that the cause of breakage is not known. Undersigned ultimately concluded the cause of loss might have been happened due to the following reasons: -
 
The respondent had placed on record the document of purchase, which clearly showed that the tank was purchased by him from Premier Containers Private Limited and the same had the capacity of 10,000 liters and was meant for storing chemicals like LABSA. The petitioner did not get the broken tank tested chemically so as to find out its quality.
The evidence of the Surveyor cannot be accepted as a conclusive evidence to show that the tank in question was either made of inferior material or was not sufficient to sustain the weight of the lost material.