IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Insurance – Fire insurance is a strategic tool for risk management, asset protection and economic resilience – Fire insurance policy does not prevent fire but it cushions financial impact when it occurs.
(2) Sine qua non for calculation of depreciation is age of machinery and accepted rate of depreciation for products – Without specifying these two ingredients, Surveyor cannot assess depreciation.
(3) Coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and in case of ambiguity, it is to be resolved in favour of Insured.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Cross Appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 10th August 2020 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after referred to as the ‘National Commission’), wherein the consumer complaint No.248 of 2012 filed by M/s Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insured’) was partly allowed and it was held by the National Commission that the Surveyor ‘had not proved that the fire was not accidental’ and that the documents provided by the Insured, namely, reports of the Bank Auditor, Architect and Chartered Accountant were adequate to assess the loss caused. Further, the National Commission held that the assessment of the loss at Rs.61,39,539/- by the Surveyor was rightly done taking into account the material lost in the fire and the documentary evidence (after the exclusion of furniture, fittings and fixtures, as they were not insured) and the said amount was directed to be paid with simple interest @ 9% per annum, with effect from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization, by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to the Insured within eight weeks.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY

2. At the outset, Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company had given cogent reasons for repudiation of the claim raised by the Insured, inasmuch as, the Insurance Company had rightly stated vide letter dated 14th June, 2011 that the nature of damage did not support the manifestation of an occurrence which could reasonably and otherwise sustainably be concluded as an occurrence within the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company’s policies.

3. She stated that the preliminary Surveyor, after visiting the premises, had concluded that circumstantial evidence indicated electrical short circuiting as the most probable cause of fire. She contended that the role of preliminary Surveyor was only to inspect the spot immediately after the loss.

4. Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel for the Insurance Company further stated that the final Surveyor, after a more detailed investigation, had concluded that ‘after removal of all the debris has resulted in a finding, which precludes the possibility of an accidental ignition of electrical origin.’ She stated that the final Surveyor had observed in paragraph 11 of the Report dated 30th March, 2011 that the electrical short circuit as a probable cause stood readily denied in view of the fact that the walls and roof right above the electrical fitting had been spared almost completely and that the debris after the occurrence at the location immediately adjoining the fitting were also not supporting the possibility of an electrical source of ignition having had its seat there and then spread out to the other materials. She stated that the final Surveyor had pointed out that even thin plastic sheets and accessories such as buttons were intact. Thus, according to her, final Surveyor had clearly opined that an electrical short circuit could not have been the source of the fire. Therefore, she stated that the final Surveyor had concluded that based on the physical examination undertaken by him, no accidental fire had occurred and that available evidence showed manifestation of multiple sources of fire.

5. She contended that the Insured had not pleaded anything specific to contradict this or to disprove the findings of the final Surveyor that fire was not accidental. She stated that the Insured had only raised few interrogatories on ventilation to the final Surveyor and CW-1 had deposed in his affidavit about the same but had failed to show the correlation or implication of the same on his finding about the fire incident. Moreover, she contended that the Insured had not led evidence of any forensic expert or independent witness disproving the report of final Surveyor.

6. Consequently, according to her, as the final Surveyor had not concl