JUDGMENT

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.—Appellant-M/s D M Industries has filed the present appeal against the Order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bathinda, (in short, “The District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by M/s D M Industries against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.-opposite parties (in short “OPs”) has been partly allowed with the following directions to OPNo.1:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to complainant Rs.2,07,829/- with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 3-5-2017 (date of repudiation) till the date of payment.”

2. Briefly stated, as per the version of the complainant Pardeep Mangla being the sole Proprietor of M/s DM Industries he was running business of manufacturing and repairing of power and distribution transformers at Bathinda for his livelihood. The Complainant Firm was having its Cash Credit Limit account of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with OP No.2 and no claim or relief was sought against it. He purchased Insurances (For Fire etc.) of the stocks for the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from OP No.1 for the stocks lying in the factory and for fire, shock and earthquake etc. w.e.f. 12.09.2016 to 11.09.2017 and paid premium. It was mentioned that on 03.04.2017 in the evening, about 20 Pcs. of Transformers were under process for removing moisture and the same were kept in heating chamber. The total process hours were 12-15 hours for removing the moisture. On the next day morning i.e. on 04-04-2017, complainant found that due to some fault in heating chamber 8 Pcs. of the Transformers, were totally burnt. In the CCTV footage, it was found that at about 12.00 midnight, smoke started emanating from the doors of chambers and engulfed in whole production Hall. He further pleaded that due to some problem in thermostat (which maintains temp. in between 60-70 degrees), heating temperature inside the chamber had increased resulting into burning of 8 Pcs. of transformers. Intimation regarding the loss was given to OP No.1 on 04.04.2017 and thereafter, OP No.1 appointed Mr. Arun Mehta as a Surveyor. He demanded various documents alongwith claim form from the complainant, which were supplied by him. He also provided the list of stocks lying in the chamber at the time of fire. The surveyor checked CCTV recording and also took pictures of 8 damaged transformers and found the loss of Rs.6,37,200/-. However, the surveyor only mentioned 6 transformers which were badly damaged, whereas in the pictures 8 Pcs were visible. The original pictures clicked by the Surveyor were in possession of Surveyor and OP No.1. It was also averred that the surveyor had reduced the rate of raw material. Complainant protested with OP No.1 and the surveyor, but all in vain.

3. OP No.1 issued letter dated 03.05.2017 rejecting the claim of Rs.6,37,200/-. Aggrieved by this action of OP, the complainant approached the District Commission for redressal of his grievance.

4. Upon notice being issued, OP No.1 filed separate written reply in District Commission, raising legal objections as under:-

The complainant obtained Standard Fire and Special Pearls Policy bearing No.36060711160100000064 w.e.f. 12-09-2016 to 11-09-2017 for sum insured of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and copy of Insurance policy along with its terms and conditions was duly supplied to complainant and both the parties to the insurance contract are bound by the terms and conditions of insurance policy.

After the incident of fire OP No.1 deputed Er.Arun Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to survey the damages and assess the loss. He inspected the insured premises in the presence of complainant on 06.04.2017 and submitted his report on 03.04.2017 with OP No.1. In the report the said Surveyor mentioned that loss had occurred due to short circuit while stocks of winded 8 Nos. 63 KVA capacity transformers were placed in oven/heating chambe