AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, J
The complainant was awarded the work of double-laning of Papu-Yupia-Hoj-Potin Road from Km 0.00 to 53.00 in Arunachal Pradesh, by PWD of that State. The complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing no. 150700/44/10/03/600000028 for the period from 20.08.2010 to 19.02.2013, in order to cover the risks mentioned in the said policy called Contractors All Risks Insurance Policy. The claim was submitted by the complainant with the OP for re-imbursement in respect of the damage which allegedly happened on 22.02.2012 at Yupia-Hoj Sector of the road. It was alleged that a landslide had occurred at various chainage from Km 11.000 to 11.270. Column no. 7 of the claim reads as under:
"7. How will the damaged items be repaired?
Rectification of damages by excavation of landslides including loading, transportation and unloading the same in disposal area with a load upto 3.00 km and making the road to lines and grades."
A surveyor M/s Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the insurer for examining the claim. Vide its report dated 19.03.2014, the surveyor inter-alia reported as under:
"5) The Mishap
Date & Time: On 22.02.2012 about 09:30 AM
The Insured's project road was damaged by the landslides during the monsoon months.
xxxx
7) Underwriters Liability
During our subsequent site visits, it has been noted that the chainage stated in the captioned claim has also been claimed vide your claim reported in June, 2012 and for which, we have already submitted the Final Survey Report No.2012-JUL-33 dated 02.12.2013.
So, it is recommended to close the subject claim as NO CLAIM."
Based upon the report of the surveyor, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.11.2014 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
As per Claim Form we note that the claim is towards excavation of debris, loading and transportation and unloading the same. The claim is found to be made entirely for cost of removal of debris that had fallen on the road under construction due to landslide following the heavy rain. There is no damage to the road that is claim.
XXXXX
It is clear that there was no claim made for material damage viz. damage to any portion of the construction and the loss claimed was entirely for "debris removal".
Debris removal is covered under Material Damage Section of the car policy as under:-
The company hereby agrees with the insured (subject to the exclusions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon) that if, at any time during the period of insurance stated in the said Schedule or during any further period of extension thereof the properly ..... described in the said Schedule be lost, damaged or destroyed by any cause, other than those specifically excluded hereunder, in a manner necessitating replacement or repair the company will pay or make good all such loss or damage upto an amount not exceeding in respect of each of the items specified in the schedule the sum set opposite thereto and not exceeding in the whole the total sum insured hereby.
The company will also reimburse the insured the cost of clearance and removal of debris following upon any event giving rise to an admissible claim under this policybut not exceeding in all the sum (if any) set opposite thereto in the schedule.
From the above coverage clause it would appear clear that:
Debris removal is essentially an extension of Material Damage cover
The Material Damage cover is against loss or damage to 'property'
In the event of an admissible claim under the policy, the company will also reimburse the cost of debris removal.
Thus, debris removal is an additional cover to Material Damage in view of the words "also reimburse", conditional upon "an admissible claim under the policy."
When debris removal is thus an additional cover and is subject to an admissible claim, there must be such claim for material damage to property insured under the policy namely the road under construction, apart from the debris removal itself.
In the absence of any Material Damage claim, the expenses for debris removal alone will not be admissible.
We may also mention that in the context of coverage of the property viz., construction, debris refers to that of the construct that might have collapsed, whereas the claim relates to debris that has fallen from outside which is not the intention of cover as expressed by the plain language of the policy. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question of considering debris removal costs does not arise in the absence of any material damage claim.
Further the Surveyors M/s. Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., confirmed that during their visits/verification they have noted that the chainage claimed in this claim i.e. near Chainage No. 11.100 in Pocket B has also been included and claimed by you vide your claim reported on the same policy for the loss as per your intimation vide your mail dated 03/07/2012 and also they confirmed that the restoration did not carryout of these chainage(s) and recommended to close the claim as no claim.
Mr. Neeraj Saini of M/s Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. is present in the Court. He is the person who alongwith his colleagues, had inspected the sites of the alleged damage. He reiterates that the claim submitted by the complainant for the alleged loss on 23.02.2014 was included by the complainant in the subsequent claim with respect to the loss which allegedly happened in June 2014. He also states that before submitting the claim for the damage which allegedly happened in June 2014, the complainant had not either removed the debris or carried out any repair/rectification work at the site of the alleged damage. Since the complainant did not repair or rectify the damage alleged to have been caused on 23.02.2014, there is no question of claiming any re-imbursement from the insurer, the expenditure incurred in the said repair/rectification having already been included in the claim submitted by the complainant for the damage which allegedly happened in June 2014.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that as far as this complaint is concerned, the complainant is not entitled to any re-imbursement from the insurer. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.