JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, President.:---This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jalna passed in Complaint No. 57/94, directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,37,500/- with interest thereon plus cost in respect of the damage sustained by the complainant on account of the explosion and fire in the factory of the complainant. The complainant's Steel Alloys Unit is located in the Addl. M.I.D.C. Area at Jalna and registered as a 'Medium Scale Industrial Unit' for manufacturing steel ingots from the raw materials. M.S. Scrap etc. For this purpose, sophisticated induction furnace for melting the industrial scrap is engaged. The said ingot is used as raw material to various re-rolling Mills for making finished rolled products such as flats, round-bars, angles, profiles, sections etc. The total cost of the Project is around Rs. 1.75 Crores. Part of the finances are raised by the loans from the SICOM. The installed capacity of 'Mini Steel Plan' is estimated as 12,000 M.T. per annum i.e. 40 Tonns per day and the total number of employees engaged in the company is around 50. The annual turn over is estimated at Rs. 4,50,00,000/- . It is run under the Managing Director Shri Arunkumar Shrikishan Agrawal. He looks after the day to day activity with 3 technical assistants. The factory building is a "A" class construction and the machinery used is the machinery inclusive of induction furnace. This unit was insured for Rs. 1.80 Crores under Fire Policy No. 161504/11/93/6/683, for the period from 29-3-93 to 28-3-94. Unfortunately on 23-6-93, there was accidental explosion which resulted in fire and injury to labourers. The factory had to be shut down and the intimation was sent to the Insurance Company on 24-6-93 and the Insurance Company deputed the Surveyor Shri Milind Sangwikar on 25-6-93. The said Shri Sangwikar visited the Factory on 25-6-93. He also visited the manufacturer's place at Ahmedabad on 2nd July, 93. On 9th July, 93, he visited the factory, for final discussions on estimates and again he visited on 24-7-93 after the commissioning of the furnace. His report is sic dt. 28-7-93. He estimated the loss payable to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,82,161/- which comprises building repairs amount of Rs. 33,000/- furnace repairs Rs. 91,166/- with 12% taxes, reinstallation by insured for lining commissioning the furnace Rs. 46,000/-. The salvage amount was worked out at Rs. His report is sic dt. 28-7-93. He estimated the loss payable to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,82,161/- which comprises building repairs amount of Rs. 33,000/- furnace repairs Rs. 91,166/- with 12% taxes, reinstallation by insured for lining commissioning the furnace Rs. 46,000/-. The salvage amount was worked out at Rs. 5,000/- and the insured agreed to retain the salvage and allow the deduction of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant Insurance Company being not satisfied with the report, engaged the services of another Surveyor Shri M.K. Bhandari on 7-10-93, and the report of Shri Bhandari is dated 13-10-93 and 18-10-93. On the basis of the report of Shri Bhandari, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 22-12-93. 2.The appellant Insurance Company contended that the Policy was a fire policy "C" and that as per the report of Shri Bhandari, Surveyor, there was no naked fire causing damage to any items. There was no explosion as alleged. The District Forum, on the basis of report of Shri Sangwikar and also on the basis of panchanama drawn by the Police, found that the damage was on account of fire and that the complainant was entitled to the above amount under the above ground. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently contended that no fire was seen at the site nor was it mentioned by the complainant in the intimation to the Insurance Company on 24-6-93 and there was, therefore, no question of awarding of compensation to the complainant. The District Forum fell in serious error in inferring from the panchanama and the report of Shri Sangwikar that the accident has to be contributed to the fire and that the damage as recorded in the report of Shri Sangwikar was not permissible. 3.The appellant has further contended that Shri Sangwikar was not authorised to assess the damage. But, we find that there is no such letter limiting the authority of Shri Sangwikar not to assess the damage and further hold that it was payable to the complainant i.e. respondent. We may, in the first instance, analyse the report of Shri Sangwikar. 3.The appellant has further contended that Shri Sangwikar was not authorised to assess the damage. But, we find that there is no such letter limiting the authority of Shri Sangwikar not to assess the damage and further hold that it was payable to the complainant i.e. respondent. We may, in the first instance, analyse the report of Shri Sangwikar. Shri Sangwikar in his report has stated that on 23-6-93 in the late evening at about 8.00 p.m., the incident took place while charging the M.S. Steel scrap in the induction furnace crucible, the odd size of scrap material accidentally fell upon either on the main bus bars of power supply of induction furnace or on the rubber hoses of the cooling system. He reported that as a result of above, either the ignition of fire due to short circuit has occurred or sudden rupture of rubber hoses of cooling system is occurred and complete cooling system of furnace failed possibly as a result of failure or breakage of one or two rubber hoses. On failure of the cooling system, sudden excessive pressure was found to have developed inside the furnace due to sudden rupture of copper coil of the induction furnace at certain places and the molten metal came in contact directly with the balance water left in the cooling system. This resulted into generation of steam which caused extensive pressure on cooling system. In the result, the hydrolysis process was developed and hydrogen was generated and this caused sudden shooting of molten metal at a very high speed upto the roof structure at the height of 9 meters. This caused damage to the G.I. sheets and trusses of the roof structure of the building. The molten metal spread all along the furnace resulting in minor injuries to the workmen who were treated in the nearby private Hospital. The District Forum has also observed that the Police recorded the panchanama of the site on 25-6-93, and there was clear recital in the panchanama that the irons had melted and appear to have been burnt. There was of course no necessity to mention the cause of melting of iron. In accordance with this, the District Forum concluded that the iron would not have melted without fire. The word "Fire" is not defined in the policy. The policy cover is the Fire Policy "C" covers the following perils: 1) Fire. There was of course no necessity to mention the cause of melting of iron. In accordance with this, the District Forum concluded that the iron would not have melted without fire. The word "Fire" is not defined in the policy. The policy cover is the Fire Policy "C" covers the following perils: 1) Fire. 2) Lighting 3) Explosion/Implosion but excluding loss or damage a) to boilers (other than domestic boilors) economisers or other vessels, machinery or apparatus in which steam is generated or their contents resulting from their own explosion/implosion. b) caused by centrifugal forces. And other perils. However, the word "Fire" is not separately defined or explained. 4.The appellants have contended that even according to Shri Sangwikar's report, no fire was seen. But, we believe that the panchanama drawn by the police clearly shows that the melted iron was seen to have burnt and that there were traces of fire. 5.The learned Advocate for the respondent/complainant has drawn our attention to the ruling of this State Commission in the case of (Sanjeev Khandelwal v. Oriental Insurance Company)1, reported in 1991(II) C.P.J. 673 wherein the Commission examined the definition of fire with reference to Oxford Reference Dictionary, the word "Fire" has been defined as "The state or process of combustion causing heat and light, the active principle operative in this flame or incandescence." This definition, therefore, explained the definition of fire. Similarly, the National Commission in the case of (Luxmi Singhania v. Rani Debi Lohia another)2, reported in 1992(I) C.P.J. 293 (N.C.) virtually expressed the same view by relying on Collins English Dictionary. Fire in the said Dictionary is defined as "The state of combustion in which inflammable material burns, producing heat, flames and often smoke". From this definition, it can be inferred that the molten metal must have suffered extensive heat on account of the failure of the cooling system and that must have resulted in the said metal blowing up and also spreading on the sites. In the ordinary process, the molten metal from furnace is poured into the "Graphite moulds" and is allowed to cool for some time. In this case, according to Shri Sangwikar, possibly on account of short circuit, the cooling system failed, the pressure developed and the molten metal shook out portion of which struck the ceiling. In the ordinary process, the molten metal from furnace is poured into the "Graphite moulds" and is allowed to cool for some time. In this case, according to Shri Sangwikar, possibly on account of short circuit, the cooling system failed, the pressure developed and the molten metal shook out portion of which struck the ceiling. In his report, he has also stated that the roof structure was damaged, G.I. Sheets and trusses of the roof structure have been badly damaged and with this report, we are unable to hold that there was no fire. One cannot lose sight of an important process that in the furnace, the scrap which put for being melted and the melted matter is then transferred to the pipes and put to sites. It is a continuous heating process accompanied by combustion. The result was damage to the factory shed, furnace and part of the installation. As against this, Shri Bhandari was deputed after the three months of the report by Shri Sangwikar and about 4 months after the incident. His report, therefore, loses the value because that was the report of Shri Sangwikar that the recommissioning started on 24th July, 97 i.e. within one month of the fire incident. Now looking to the detailed examination of the report of Shri Sangwikar, the fact of fire as defined by the State Commission as well as by the National Commission shall be deemed to have occurred in the Factory. 6.The learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that for combustion, the special premium is charged. However, we do not have any policy showing as to what premium and under what heads, it was collected. Shri Bhandari in his report has solely relied on the naked fire not being seen makes it clear that there was no explosion, also does not appear to be true because Shri Sangwikar who immediately inspected the spot noted that the G.I. Sheets of the roof were extensively damaged. We, therefore, read both fire and explosion in this incident. We have indicated that Shri Sangwikar was not prohibited from estimating the damage. He is the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company and the appellant Insurance Company cannot dis-own the report which is contrary to the interest of the appellant. The narrow interpretation put by Shri Bhandari that fire should have been visible that the process should have accompanied by sparks. He is the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company and the appellant Insurance Company cannot dis-own the report which is contrary to the interest of the appellant. The narrow interpretation put by Shri Bhandari that fire should have been visible that the process should have accompanied by sparks. On the other hand, in his extensive report, has observed that on account of failure of the system of cooling, the entire accident took place. It was not proper on the part of the Insurance Company to have made an attempt to over rule Shri Sangwikar who was the person who visited the site immediately after the incident. We find that the conclusions of Shri Sangwikar are also supported by the panchanama of the Police. Attempt on the part of appellant to disown the liability arising out of the accident is unfortunate. The District Forum has, therefore, rightly held that the claim is maintainable. There was a fire and that fire was covered under the Insurance Policy. 7.The learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to some of the items, labour charges etc. which are included in the claim worked out by Shri Sangwikar. They are not permissible. However, without adverting upon the details, we find that when the Insurance Company has either tried to avoid the liability of such minor items they need not be looked into, the District Forum awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,37,500/- only in consonance with the report of Shri Sangwikar. We see no reason to discard any item. Shri Bhandari's report suffer from legal infirmities. In that light of the matter, we uphold the decision of the District Forum. Since this is an attempt on the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim on the false pretext and also delay the claim, we award the cost of Rs. 5000/- in appeal. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER 8."The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay to the respondent/complainant Rs. 1,37,500/- (Rs. One lakh thirty seven thousand five hundred only) with 18% interest and cost of Rs. 1,000/- as ordered by the District Forum. Beside, the amount awarded by the District, the appellant shall pay further Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) being the cost of this appeal to the respondent/complainant. The appellant Insurance Company seems to have deposited some amount with the State Commission. 1,000/- as ordered by the District Forum. Beside, the amount awarded by the District, the appellant shall pay further Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) being the cost of this appeal to the respondent/complainant. The appellant Insurance Company seems to have deposited some amount with the State Commission. The amount of the deposit if any be paid to the respondent/complainant." Appeal dismissed.