Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that as per surveyor's report and technical expert's report, complainant was not entitled to any claim on account of Exclusion clause in the policy which excluded claim on account of settlement or movement of made up ground as well defective design or workmanship or use of defective materials.

          Learned Counsel for appellant has drawn my attention towards surveyor- Pankaj Goel's report in which he observed that for ascertaining exact cause, detailed analysis of various constituents will be required.  Final survey report submitted by protocol surveyor observed in clause 10 that as per certificate issued by Engineer- Amandeep Singh, cracks have taken place due to subsidence of soil which should have taken place due to unexpected seepage of water in torrential rains in the area.  He further observed that as per findings of structural consultants from Govt. Polytechnic, Nilokheri, the cement concrete Grade M-15 was used whereas it should have been of M-20 Grade.  It was, further, observed that depth of foundation at site was not to the mark and height between base of footing and Tie beam was  very high without any other beam between them and foundation of wall was placed on filled up soil and piping effect might have produced cause for foundation to settle.  Perusal of report of Govt. Polytechnic, Nilokheri, reveals that at everywhere it mentioned that aforesaid reasons may cause loss but they were not sure and concluded that basic cause of damage seems to be differential settlement by one or the other reasons, the same has to be retro fitted under the guidance of some expert, meaning thereby, Govt. Polytechnic, Nilokheri, was not sure about the cause for loss and in such circumstances, on the basis of aforesaid report, it cannot be presumed that loss was caused due to settlement or movement of made up ground and defective design or workmanship or use of defective material.  Even, Protocol Surveyor has observed that use of M-15 Grade cement and keeping a very high distance between footing and Tie beam may not be reason for the damage and further observed that as building had faced two monsoon seasons before disputed cracks, had structure itself was weak, it would have given way within a few months, which makes it crystal clear that loss caused to the building was not covered under exclusion clause.  Protocol Surveyor in para 14 further observed that there was structural damage to the number of buildings in the vicinity and had there been construction problem in complainant's unit, such damage would have restricted to complainant's building only, which makes it crystal clear that loss was not caused due to use of alleged low grade cement and distance between beams and not providing proper foundation.  On the contrary, S.K. Agrawal who carried out inspection before acceptance of proposal observed that complete factory is well built and proposal is fit for insurance.  Explanation has been sought from S.K. Agrawal by letter dated 23.12.2009 and by reply dated 26.12.2009, he observed that insured intentionally did not show him damaged portion or might have hidden damages by keeping stocks in front of damaged portion but this explanation cannot be accepted because same explanation was given by him by letter dated 18.11.2009 without any request from opposite party which shows that this explanation was procured by opposite party for repudiating claim.

          Protocol Surveyor observed in para 5 of his report that foundations are designed on Strip Footing and foundations rest at a depth of about 4 meters, which is 2 meter more than the recommended depth, thus, providing better structural stability and reinforcement design and spacing indicates that Net Bearing capacity of the foundations is more than 6 Ton per sq mtr.  As per Engineer-Amandeep Singh's report, construction design checked  at 15 different points after excavation and construction was found as per design and it was further observed that brick masonry in foundations in the central portion found as marked in drawing, which makes it clear that neither there was any defective design nor defective workmanship or use of defective materials and opposite party committed deficiency in repudiating claim and Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing complaint.