AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Mandi, dated 16.1.1997, whereby the complaint of the complainant/appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) has been dismissed.
THE complainant has allegedly incurred Rs. 20,750/- for repair of his photostat machine insured with the opposite party/respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the Assurance Company). Admittedly, the insurance policy, when the photostat machine was burnt, was in force. According to the complainant, it is Fire Policy ''A'' and the machine was burnt due to some fire and is covered under the Fire Policy "A'' and the Insurance Policy is at page-38 of the file. The learned Counsel for the Assurance Company, however, submits that the case of the complainant is not covered under the insurance policy as the exclusion Clause 6 provides that the insurance does not cover the loss or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric household or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self-heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning included), provided that this exemption shall apply only to the particular electrical machine apparatus, fixture, fitting or portions of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portions of the electrical installation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up and the case is apparently covered under the exclusion clause. According to the Surveyor report, it has been found by him on inspection that due to some short-circuiting or heating of some electric unit heat was generated and thus smoke started coming out. Due to heat, some plastic components got heat and rubber coating on drum got damaged. The following parts got damaged : 1.Feeding unit. 2.Cleaning unit. 3.Drum. 4.One transformer. 5.Conveyor section.
It is not clear from the Surveyor Report as to whether the Surveyor was qualified to give abovementioned findings. Admittedly, no expert opinion has been obtained by the Insurance Company whether the case comes under the exclusion clause. Further, there is no material on the record on the basis of which such findings have been given by the Surveyor Shri Satish Saxena.
IT is settled principle of law that while invoking the exclusion clause, the Assurance Company itself has to make out a case for exclusion and in our opinion, the Assurance Company has miserably failed to substantiate that the case falls under the exclusion clause. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the case is not covered under the exclusion clause.
THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to amount of repairs he has undertaken for setting his photostat machine in right order. Although the complainant has claimed Rs. 20,750/- but this amount seems to be on higher side. It is apparent from the Surveyor''s report that he has assessed the damage for Rs. 9,437/- which, according to us, seems to be reasonable and just and is awarded accordingly. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,437/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of fire i.e. 14.2.1996 till actual payment. There is no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.