Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The complainant submitted that on 02-4-2013, OP1 repudiated the claim stating that the breakdown of "Turbine" is not due to voltage/fluctuations or of a foreign particle entered into the Turbine and that no overhaul of the turbine was done since 2009 and that the breakdown was due to normal wear and tear only and also alleged that the complainant removed the Turbine without their permission from Jegurupadu to Bangalore in violation of the conditions of the policy and repudiated the claim.   On 06-6-2013 the complainant submitted a representation to OPs. 1 & 2 clarifying that the breakdown was not due to normal wear and tear and that the overhauling of the Turbine will not be done as per the age but as per the running hours of the Turbine and that overhauling will be done for every alternative 3 years if it runs 100% continuously and that the subject Turbine run sparingly  and that the breakdown of the Turbine was not due to wear and tear as it run for one year 10 months since November, 2009 to August 2012, well within the limits of overhauling due date.  The complainant also enclosed month wise statement of stoppage of hours of the Turbine and power generation particulars duly singed by the Deputy Electrical Inspector and the same was also submitted/marked to opposite party No.1 and inspite of the same, the opposite parties have not reconsidered their decision of repudiation.  The O.Ps have not furnished copies of survey report and the investigation report as per IRDA provisions and as such the complainant claimed the same under the Right to Information Act. 

The complainant shifted the turbine in question from the plant at Jegurpadu to M/s Triveni Turbine Ltd. at Bangalore and the allegation of the complainant that the alleged breakdown occurred due to heavy vibrations and due to fluctuation in voltage and entry of  foreign material in the system is not true.  The complainant did not keep the machine available to the surveyor  and though an entry of foreign particle is mentioned no such item was detected or derived and specified in the manufacturer's letter dated 04-9-2012 and no recorded load fluctuations data was produced by the maintenance staff of the complainant.  The opposite parties submitted that they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant basing on the terms and conditions of the policy, survey and investigator's report and as the complainant violated the terms of the policy and lifted the turbine to the manufacturers premises without consent from the insurance company and the alleged breakdown of the turbine is not due to voltage fluctuation or an entry of foreign particle into the turbine but the alleged breakdown was due to no overhauling since July, 2009 and due to wear and tear and therefore the complainant is not entitled to the amounts claimed.

Point Nos.ii & iii: It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties (1 & 2) insurance company issued the "Machinery breakdown insurance policy" bearing No.151102/44/11/51/30000023 for the period from 31-12-2011 to 30-12-2012 for covering the power plant (unit II) at Jegurupadu, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District for an amount of  Rs.3,23,00,000/- in favour of the complainant company, which paid a premium of Rs.2,00,791/- vide Ex.A1, policy.  

        The contention of the complainant  that on 08-08-2012 at about 10.30 am there were heavy vibrations and abnormal sounds and the turbine tripped and breakdown occurred and the same was informed to the opposite parties.  The complainant submitted a claim form, Ex.A7, for loss of Rs.52,73,610/-.  Basing on Ex.A4/B4, investigator's report, dated 21-3-2013, the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on 02-4-2013 stating that the breakdown of the turbine is not due to voltage/fluctuations or a foreign particle entering into the turbine but as no overhaul of turbine was done since the year 2009 and the breakdown was due to normal wear and tear only and it was also alleged that the complainant removed the turbine without their permission from Jegurupadu factory to Bangalore in violation of the conditions of the policy, without considering the representation of the complainant vide Ex.A6 dated 19-10-2012 to the effect that the breakdown of 4 MW Turbine was not due to non overhauling since 2009 and that the breakdown was not due to normal wear and tear, that the overhauling of the turbine will not be carried as per the age, but it will be carried out as per the running hours of the turbine and that the overhauling generally will be done for every alternative 3 years if it runs 100% continuously but the subject turbine ran sparingly. 

The complainant has not intimated about the occurrence of loss immediately to their company The breakdown caused to the turbine is not due to voltage/fluctuations or a foreign particle entering into the turbine as claimed by the complainant, no overhaul of the turbine was done since the year 2009 (provision No.3) and the breakdown is due to normal wear and tear only.
The complainant had removed the turbine without prior permission from the opposite parties from his factory premises at Jegurupadu to Bangalore which is also a violation of the conditions of the policy.