IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) Exclusionary Clauses – Unless the insured is duly informed about the terms and conditions of the policy, the exclusionary clauses of the policy cannot be made applicable upon him.
(ii) Contractual Obligation – A failure of the insurance company to comply with the contractual obligation to release the claimed amount after the incident amounts to a deficiency in service.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President).—The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) allow the present complaint and hold the opposite parties of guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has thereby violated the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

(b) quash the repudiation letter dated 13.4.2012 issued by the opposite party insurance company;

(c) quash the operation of the notice dated 02.09.2013 issued by the Opposite Party No.4 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002;

(d) direct the opposite party insurance company to pay the complainant the claimed amount of Rs.44.64 Lacs along with interest @ 15% per annum on the said claimed amount calculated from the date of loss i.e. 9.5.2011 till the date of realization of the same by the complainant;

(e) award a compensation of Rs.15 lacs in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties insurance company as well as the Opposite Party No.4 jointly and severally, towards the business loss and loss of reputation in business suffered by the complainant due to non settlement of the claim by the opposite party Insurance Company;

(f) award a compensation of Rs.5 lacs in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties jointly and severally for the mental tension, harassment, mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant;

(g) award a cost of litigation of Rs.2,50,000/- in favor of the complainant and against the opposite parties jointly and severally;

pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Opposite party no. 4 is the banker of the complainant and had sanctioned a working capital limit of Rs. 90 lacs for business expansion of the complainant. In order to safeguard the stock in trade, the complainant on recommendation of the opposite party no. 4, took a general insurance policy from the opposite party no. 1 for a period from 02.04.2011 to 01.04.2012. The sum insured as per the said policy is Rs. 1,18,00,000/-. The insurance premium was deducted from the accounts of the complainant by opposite party no. 4 and paid to the insurance company. It is submitted that the cover note, insurance policy, terms and conditions of the policy etc. were never shared by the opposite parties despite various requests by the complainant. Unfortunately, on 09.05.2011, a burglary/theft took place at the insured premises and the stock was found to be stolen by unknown culprits. Subsequently, an FIR dated 10.05.2011 was registered with the Police Station, Amar Colony and on 11.05.2011, the complainant lodged its claim with the opposite party no. 1. Thereafter, the survey was conducted by the insurance company and all relevant documents were provided to the surveyors. On 12.05.2011, the complainant sent a letter to the insurance company to settle the expeditiously settle the claim and again requested the opposite party to provide complete set of insurance policy. after repeated requests to the insurance company, on 15.05.2011, the complainant received the copy of the insurance policy from Mr. Jaspreet Singh (Surveyor). On 20.102011, the complainant again reiterated its request for settlement of claim to the tune of Rs. 44.46 lacs as certified by the policy authority in its final report. On 13.04.2012, the opposite party no. 1 arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.05.2012 to the opposite parties but was of no avail.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 to 3 contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The c