IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer has to show that the fire caused was convinced by the assured.

K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—Complaint was filed alleging that the complainant is engaged in the manufacturing of cotton and synthetic yarn on open end machines and has a unit at 71/3, Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal. Complainant purchased policy No. 353600/11/01/00258 of Rs. 2,75,00,000 covering the peril of fire to the stock of raw material for the period 19.8.2001 to 18.8.2002 from New India Assurance Co Limited (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) whose Registered Office, Division Office and Regional Office have been impleaded as opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. Complainant also obtained po1icy No. 353600/11/01/00260 of Rs.11,10,00,000 to cover the peril of fire etc. to the building, plant & machinery and stock for the period from 19.8.2001 to 18.8.2002. It was alleged that on the intervening night of 13-14th July, 2002, fire broke out in the said unit of the complainant causing severe damage to the raw material, building, plant & machinery and stock. Cause of fire was electric short-circuit/sparking. Police and fire brigade were immediately intimated of the fire. Intimation was sent to the opposite party on 14.7.2002. M/s. T.P. Singh & Co was appointed as preliminary surveyor by the opposite party and this surveyor visited the site of fire on 15.7.2002. R.G. Verma was appointed as Investigator. Kaypsens was appointed as final surveyor to assess the loss. Chandra Prakash was also appointed as second investigator by the opposite party. Though these surveyors/investigators submitted the reports to the Insurance Co but the copies thereof were not made available to the complainant. It was further stated that on 26.10.2002 the complainant submitted claim of Rs. 978,91,000 under various heads which on 3.2.2003 was revised to Rs. 927,51,000. Since the opposite party was deliberately delaying the payment of claim, the complainant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the order dated 1.4.2003 the High Court directed the opposite party to deal with the claim of the complainant expeditiously and preferably within one month. By the order dated 23.5.2003, the opposite party was granted three months’ additional time to comply with the order dated 1.4.2003. It was stated that by the letter dated 19.8.2003, the opposite party mala fide repudiated the claim. Attributing gross deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Co. the complainant sought direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 927,51,000 and, in alternative, Rs.5,27,48,094 along with interest @ 18% p.a. and pay amount of Rs.1,00,00,000 towards compensation on account of delay in processing the claim.

2. Complaint was contested by filing written version on the affidavit of Y.S. Udasi, Divisional Manager at Karnal branch. It was alleged that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as it availed of the services of Insurance Co. for commercial purpose and civil court is the appropriate forum for deciding the disputed questions of facts and complicated issues involved in the case. On merits, issuance of two policies was not denied. It was denied that the fire was caused due to electric short-circuit/sparking. Cause and origin of fire was still not known. LPA report did not point out the exact cause of initiation of fire. As per the report of FSL dated 13.8.2002 all electric connections fitted in the complainant’s factory were examined and there was no indication of any electric short circuit. TAC also reported that the exact cause of fire was not known. Keypsens in its preliminary report opined that the cause of fire was not known. In its final report the Keypsens, however, came out with a new theory that fire may have been caused due to spark which was not even the case of the complainant. Manufacturing unit of the complainant was running only one shift. It was further alleged that Keypsens, final surveyor assessed the loss of stock at Rs.1,94,59,151 out of which amount of Rs. 1,83,96,174 pertained to raw material godown. Maximum