9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . MATHUR, JJ. Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for the Appellant. S.K. Dholakia and Ms. Sumita Hazarika for the Respondent. JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 74/1994 on 18-7-2003. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are : The respondent/complainant M/s. Kiran Combers Spinners filed its complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of United India Insurance Company. The case of the complainant/respondent was that they got their building and stock insured from the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company ). The respondent-complainan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission, New Delhi claiming the damages as aforesaid. 3. The claim was contested by the Company; appellant herein on the basis of the report given by the Surveyor and their plea was that the loss and damage caused to building due to structural defect in column No. 1 of building, the subsidence is a specific extension to the above policy which was not insured by the company. The relevant extract of Surveyor s report reads as under : "As brought out in the body of the report, this loss and damage has happened due to failure of column No. 1 which may have happened due to its own structural failure or due to its sinking/tilting causing it to become eccentrically loaded and hence falling in tension. The insured are covered under the Std. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted that as pointed out by the surveyor that the third column over which the building was constructed was not properly constructed and therefore, on account of tilting of that column the whole building collapsed and as such the company was not entitled to compensate the claimant-respondent because of the structural defect. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Company has certified the building to be of first class construction and no defect was pointed out by the company, and it is on account of the flood water entering from the side of Kohinoor Woollen Mills, the building collapsed. It was submitted that in fact the collapse of the building was on account of entering of flood water from the side o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Exclusions in the Policy reads as under : "8. Any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence directly or indirectly of any of the following occurrence namely, ( a )Earthquake, volcanic eruption, or other convulsion of nature. ( b )Typhoon, storm, cyclone, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation. ( c )War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), Civil War. ( d )Mutiny, civil commotion assuming the proportions of or amounting to a popular rising, military rising insurrection, rebellion, military or usurped power. ( d )Burning, whether accidental or otherwise, forest bush and jungles and the clearing of lands by fire. In any action, suit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilding on account of poor construction of column No. 3 of the building, there also the submission appears to be not justified. In fact, the Company has certified that this building has a first class construction. Normally when the company insures any factory, then their Officers and the Engineers used to inspect the building to find out whether there is any defect in the construction or the construction is of poor quality. In the present case, the company certified that it is a first class construction, then for some defect which has not been noticed by the company, no benefit could be given to the company for such defect. More so, in the present case, as pointed out that because of defective structure i.e . column No. 3, the building has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
