V.K. Jain ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Vide its letter dated 24.08.2005, Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded the work of Investigation, Design and Execution of Tunnel -1 & Tunnel - 2, including the Head Regulator at the entrance of portal of Tunnel - 1 of Srisailam Left Bank Canal Tunnel Scheme of AMR project from NSRSP Reservoir, to the complainant company, for an amount of Rs. 19,25,00,00,100/-. It was stated in the scope of work that since the alignment was passing through the Wild Life Sanctuary area, it might be preferable to execute the tunnel with Tunnel Boring Machines, but the tenderer could execute the project with any other alternative methods which were friendly to environment and ecology. The complainant obtained a Contractor's All Risks Insurance Policy from the OP, on 10.04.2006, for the period from 01.03.2006 to 28.02.2011 paying a sum of Rs. 1,85,040,000/- as the first installment of the premium. Before issuing the insurance policy, the insurer, vide its letter dated 28.01.2006, pointed out that the bifurcation of Rs. 1925 Crores as provided to the complainant included only the civil engineering and erection cost. It was further stated in the said letter that as for TBMs, they were arranging for the separate support for the material damage part. The insurer sought to know the separate value of each TBM, alongwith their configuration etc. No separate cover for the TBMs however was taken. The total premium including taxes was agreed at Rs. 1,85,040,000/-. The material damage under the above referred policy comprised the project sum insured of Rs. 14,60,34,48,276/- and escalation of Rs. 7,30,17,24,138/-, making an aggregate of Rs. 21,90,51,72,414/-. Vide general endorsement dated 25.08.2006, the project sum insured under the policy was agreed to be read as Rs. 19,25,00,00,000/-, and the total sum insured including escalation was agreed at Rs. 21,17,50,00,000/-.
2. There was some discussion between the parties as regards rescheduling of the aforesaid policy. Pursuant to the said discussion, Mr. Pradeep Singla of the complainant company sent an e-mail to Mr. Prashant Gupta of the OP stating therein that the total contract value of Rs. 1925 Crores included the cost of two Tunnels Boring Machines (TBMs), its support equipments and other plant and equipments. The cost of the TBMs and its support equipments was stated to be Rs. 469 Crores and the insurer was requested to confirm that the policy issued was comprehensive as far as coverage of all materials/materials and other utilities. The insurer was also requested to re-schedule the period of the policy. Vide e-mail dated 19.06.2007, Mr. Sujeet Mishra of the insurer informed Mr. Pradeep Singla of the complainant that the policy included erection cover of TBMs at the site during the construction phase.
3. Vide e-mail dated 11.07.2007, Mr. Pradeep Singla of the complainant company requested Mr. Prashant Gupta of the OP to provide premium computation inter-alia for confirmation of coverage of erection of two TBMs, for a period of three months under the same cover. Responding to the aforesaid e-mail on 13.07.2007, the insurer informed the complainant that erection of two TBMs shall be covered in the CPM, first loss policy itself.
4. Vide e-mail dated 14.11.2007, Mr. Pradeep Singla of the complainant informed the insurer that erection job of one of the TBMs shall commence from 19.11.2007. The insurer was requested to confirm the storage and erection risk of the two TBMs under the existing CAR policy. Vide e-mail dated 15.11.2007, the insurer confirmed that the storage and erection risk of two TBMs were covered under the existing CAR policy.
5. The case of the complainant is that the project site and the surrounding areas having been hit by heavy and incessant rains, it got completely sub-merged with water causing substantial damage to its property including the TBMs which were under erection at that time on the inlet of tunnel. The intimation of the loss having been given to the insurer, M/s. Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. were appointed as the surveyors for assessing the loss. The surveyors however informed the complainant that the existing CAR policy did not cover ........