- (1.) THE complainant owned a tanker lorry which he insured with the opposite party. There was a leakage in the gate valve of the tanker lorry. Therefore, the complainant took the same to a garage for repair. The tanker was filled with water as a precautionary measure before repair. At the workshop when they started to do the repair, after discharge of water, there was a sudden blast and the entire tanker was damaged and the chassis also got bent. Therefore, the complainant made a claim with the opposite parties which was repudiated by the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
(2.) THE opposite parties, for their part contended that the repudiation was legal and proper and the damage was due to implosion due to the vacuum caused inside the tanker. The policy covers only explosions and not implosions and thus the repudiation was proper and there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) THE lower Forum allowed the complaint and ordered a sum of Rs. 1,25,305/ - to be paid to the complainant. The lower Forum also held that the accident had taken place by external means and thus was covered by the policy. Though the lower Forum has referred to the contention of the opposite parties that it was an implosion, they have held that there is no independent evidence on the side of the opposite parties to show that the accident took place due to implosion. The accident had taken place within the premises of the garage or repairer where the tanker was taken for repairs. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot be aware of what happened at that time, because the Surveyor visited the spot only after the accident and from what they found they have reported that it was an implosion and not explosion. Even if one witnesses the accident, one cannot say by merely witnessing the accident whether it was an accident due to implosion or explosion. Therefore, the observation of the lower Forum is meaningless. Equally the observation that the Surveyor has not enquired the eye -witnesses and, therefore, their report cannot be accepted is without any merit. There is nothing to show that there were witnesses. The complainants have not produced any proof affidavit from the workshop owner or the workmen. They have not examined the workmen. The complainant is not an expert in the accident. He is not qualified technically to say from seeing the accident whether it happened due to implosion or explosion. All he knows was that when the workers were taking steps to carry out the repairs, there was an accident in whch the tanker lorry was damaged. Now, in such circumstances, we have to see whether what happened was implosion or explosion. In the notice issued by the complainant, he has only stated that at that time there was a sudden blast heard and there was bursting in which the tanker was fully damaged. He also does not explain how the accident took place and what was happening at the time when blasting was heard. The Surveyor has stated in his report that there is no trace of fire. In fact in the notice issued by the complainant through his lawyer on 27.7.1999, he does not mention anything about fire. He has simply mentioned that "The number 2 of you took my client s tanker in front of your workshop and started the repair work by removing flange bolt using spanner at about 12.30 p.m. At that time there was a sudden blast of the tank in which the tank was fully damaged and chassis bent". The Insurance policy admittedly covers only loss by accidents from external means. The complainant has not produced any material nor has made any allegation to show that the accident was on account of any external means. The complainant has only stated that when it was being taken by the 2nd opposite party for effecting repairs, there was a sudden explosion. The complaint does not mention anything about any fire being there nearby or about the workers using arc welding. They also do not mention anything about the existence of any open fire or any combustible material. On the other hand, in paragraph 6 they only say that "the workshop men started to do repair of the valve after discharging water, in front of the workshop and started to do repair by removing Flange Bolt using spanner at about 12.30 p.m. At that time, there was a sudden blast.." It is not explained by the complainant how if one uses a spanner to remove the bolt it can bring about the accident. Once it is admitted that it is a lorry tanker which was used for carrying petroleum products, there is every possibility of implosion. Both the Surveyors have clearly stated that there was no fire mark in and around the tank of explosion. Explosion means sudden violent burst with a loud report and the technical definition is "sudden increase in pressure in the surrounding air or gases" from sudden and violent expansion of any substance in their neighbourhood. Neither in the complaint nor in the notice, the complainant has mentioned any fact to suggest that there was anything to trigger of a sudden increase in the pressure in the surrounding air or gas or leading to sudden violent expansion of any substance in their neighbourhood. On the other hand, the tanker was just taken to the workshop where they started to carry out repairs to the gate valve and the workshop men started just using the spanner. Definitely, this cannot lead to any sudden increase in the pressure in the surrounding air or gases or sudden and violent expansion of any substance in the neighbourhood. If there is an atmospheric pressure and where external atmospheric pressure causes inward collapse of the equipment, it is known as implosion. It is to be pointed out that the complainant has clearly stated that before carrying out the repair work they filled the tanker with water and let it out. Therefore, it could have been possibly an implosion. Hence, in our opinion, the accident here, would not have happened due to external means. In other words, the accident could not have been the direct result of or the effect of any external pressure bringing about sudden change in the atmospheric pressure on the outside causing expansion of the air. That is not the case even according to the complainant. Therefore, the other possibility is implosion which is explained in a way by the complainant himself. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant has "filled up the tanker with water as the precautionary steps" and the "workshop men started to do repair of the valve after discharging water, in front of the workshop and started to do repair by removing Flange Bold using spanner at about 12.30 p.m. At the time, there was a sudden blast heard.." It is clear from this that the cause of the accident was not any fire nor it could have been due to any external means. On the other hand, due to the inherent quality or the causing of sudden vacuum being created, this accident had taken place. The nature of the damage also indicates that the cause of damage should have been from inside viz., inward direction. Therefore, we hold that the accident was not caused by external means and, therefore, the repudiation by the opposite parties is justified. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appeal is entitled to acceptance. Consequently we hold that the order of the lower Forum is liable to be set aside and we accordingly set aside the same.;