Case nº Consumer Case No. 40 Of 2011 of NCDRC Cases, May 19, 2017 (case P.D. Agrawal Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ms. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate and Mr. Johnson Subba, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Joy Basu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Tyagi, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav, Advocate
PresidentMr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member
Resolution DateMay 19, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


V.K. Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)

  1. The complainant company was awarded a contract for construction, upgradation, operation and maintenance of Hoshiarpur-Tanda Road and Moga-Kotkapura Road Project on BOT basis. The complainant obtained a Contractor''s All Risk Policy (CAR) from the opposite party for the period from 15.6.2006 to 14.12.2009. The project was completed on 18.9.2007. During the maintenance period of the project, on 28.7.2009, Bridge No.3 at Hoshiarpur gave way to extensive damage due to flood caused by heavy rains. The complainant lodged a claim with the insurer which appointed a surveyor to investigate the same. The claim however, was rejected vide letter dated 19.02.2010 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

    "Whilst expressing our deep concern over the loss caused to you we would like to draw your attention on the following points:

    "the main reason for the collapse of the bridge is washing away of the stone apron on the D/S side cut off wall in front of 6-7 spans towards Hoshiarpur-Side due to which the cut off walls were washed away. This resulted into heavy scouring under the D/S side floor protection and subsequently under the open foundations of the piers. The piers started collapsing one by one after the scouring took place under the open foundations which resulted into the collapse of the deck slab of the bridge".

    It may be noted that the collapse occurred in the downstream side protection and open foundation comprising of brick masonry which were eroded leading to the fall of the brick piers one by one all of which are part of the old bridge structure and not the newly constructed RCC upstream side portion and hence is outside the scope of the project construction and outside the scope of the policy coverage.

    Therefore, the structure of the old bridge is not covered under the policy".

  2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant is before this Commission.

  3. The complaint has been resisted by the insurer, primarily on the ground that the loss sustained by the complainant was not covered under the insurance policy taken by it.

  4. The insurance policy taken by the complainant, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:


    "Location of Risk / Project Premises:

    Construction, upgradation, operation and maintenance of

    Nature of Project -- Construction, upgradation,, operation and maintenance of

    Section I -- Material damage --

    The company hereby agrees with the insured...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT