IMPORTANT POINT
Theory of undue influence and coercion belied by conduct of complainant, in waiting for two years before filing consumer complaint.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—The complainant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The complainant, through its Managing Director Naresh Garg has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging that complainant company obtained four standard fire and special perils policies from the opposite party insurance company being policies nos. 261400/11/710/2004 valid for the period 20.11.2003 to 19.11.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,67,00,000/-; 261400/11/794/2004 for a period 06.01.2004 to 05.01.2005 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, 261411/11/082/2005 for the period 10.05.2004 to 09.05.2005 for a sum of Rs.2,56,50,000/- and 261400/11/382/2005 valid for the period 01.09.2004 to 31.08.2005 for Rs.8,00,000/-. The risk covered under the insurance policy included loss due to fire, riots, strikes and other allied perils.

2. That the complainant was maintaining a cash credit account with its bankers. The complainant company in furtherance of the terms of the cash credit account had been submitting the monthly stock statements to the Canara Bank in respect of cotton yarn, cotton and cotton waste lying in the factory. According to the complainant, the cash credit facility was extended by the bank against hypothecation of stocks to the limit of Rs.85,00,000/- besides the complainant company had taken a term loan for building and machinery from the bankers. Apart from that, a subsidy loan of Rs.13,00,000/- was taken by the complainant company from Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

3. That on 04th September, 2004, a sudden fire broke out in the factory premises of the complainant. Effort was made to extinguish fire with the help of sand, water buckets, fire extinguisher and fire hydrants installed in the insured factory. The fire brigade was also informed. Pursuant to the information, fire tender arrived promptly and helped in controlling the fire. It is further alleged that intimation of fire incident was also given to the Police Station Sadar Panipat and an FIR in that regard was registered.

4. That according to the complainant, all the machineries installed in the fire affected open-end machines shed and the adjoining carding machines shed were badly burnt by the fire. The complete residual stock under process left over on the various machines had also been completely burnt by the fire. Some of the open-end machines, the reeling machines, the draw frames, the converters and the cone winder installed in the open-end machines shed had been very badly damaged by the fire. The cheese winder had also been damaged by the fire. Some of the carding machines installed in the adjoining carding machines shed too had been badly damaged by the fire. The roof of the open-end machines shed had also collapsed. All the trusses had been bent and twisted. The roof of the carding machines shed had also been damaged. The false ceiling in both the affected sheds too had been damaged. The ducting of the humidification plant had also been badly damaged.

5. It is alleged that as a result of fire, the complainant company suffered loss of Rs.20,40,000 on account of damage caused to the building, Rs.1,74,70,697/- on account of damage caused to the machinery, Rs.3,45,600/- on account of damage caused to the false ceiling. The sum total of the damage on the aforesaid three counts was to the tune of Rs.1,98,56,297/-..

6. The insurance company on being informed of the loss caused due to fire appointed M/s Enkay Tech-Con Pvt. Ltd. as a surveyor. On 04.09.2004 Sh. N K Gupta from the aforesaid surveyor company visited the factory premises of the insured and thoroughly inspected the factory area damaged due to fire. It is alleged that surveyor closely examined the building and machinery which was damaged and also checked and verified the relevant account books and documents of the complainant company. It is the case of the complainant that after discussions with the surveyor, the complainant decided to withdraw its