IMPORTANT POINT
First Surveyor - Insurer must specify cogent and satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor under section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 and that if the report has inherent defects or is found to be arbitrary, excessive or exaggerated in nature, a surveyor can be appointed.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This complaint has been filed under section 21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of a Fire Insurance Policy taken by the complainant to cover its building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and stocks at its unit in 14, GIDC Industrial Estate, Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujarat 382715, which was repudiated by the opposite party.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, a leading manufacturer of sanitary ware and bath fittings in India, had purchased an Insurance Policy No. 300900/11/14/3100002790 (in short, the ‘policy’) effective from 01.03.2015 to midnight of 29.02.2016 for a sum of Rs 2,14,50,000/- to insure its building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and stocks at its unit in Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujarat (in short, the ‘insured premises’). On 29.02.2016 at 11.05 pm an accidental fire broke out at the insured premises and the staff of the complainant called the Fire Department of Kadi Municipality for despatching the fire brigade. According to the complainant, three fire tenders were despatched at 11.45 pm and the fire was doused. On 01.03.2016 the Opposite Party was intimated about the fire incident. An estimated loss of Rs.3,50,00,000/- was projected. The opposite party appointed a surveyor, Mr Jigar Trivedi, who visited the premises on 02.03.2016. Subsequently, another surveyor Mr G Satapathy, was appointed who surveyed the premises in March 2016 and submitted a report on 25.08.2016. In December 2017, the opposite party appointed another surveyor, Mr A.K. Ajmera as an investigator who submitted an interim report on 30.05.2018 followed by a final report in July 2018. During this period, the complainant made several efforts with the opposite party for the settlement of its claim.

3. The opposite party on 20.12.2018 informed the complainant that the claim submitted had certain deficiencies and that the time of the fire was not established at 11.05 pm on 29.02.2016; there was no confirmation on record about how the Fire Station and Police Station received information and in view of the discrepancies in the statements of various officials regarding the phone calls made, the time of loss and manner of intimation could not be established. The complainant vide letter dated 09.01.2019 clarified in detail the issues raised. However, by its letter dated 25.01.2019 the opposite party repudiated the claim on the same grounds mentioned in its letter dated 20.12.2018. It was conveyed that the complainant had not provided the desired information to the surveyor and thereby not complied with conditions 6, 1 and 8 of the Standard Fire Perils Policy.

4. The complainant took up the matter with the Fire Station, Kadi Municipality who certified on 03.06.2019 that a distress fire call at the godown of the complainant was indeed received by them at 11.05 pm on 29.02.2016 and that three fire tenders having registration numbers GJ 2G 7191 driven by Mr. Jitender Rami, GJ 2G 7270 driven by Mr. Shailesh G Patel and GJ 2G 7271 driven by Mr. Shaileshbhai G. Patel were deployed who doused the fire. This certificate was however not considered by the opposite party which reiterated its previous repudiation on 25.07.2019. A legal notice dated 27.09.2019 was then issued by the complainant seeking settlement of the claim along with 18% interest for the delay within 14 days. As there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant is before this Commission with the following prayer:—

(a) Direct the opposite parties to refund to the complainants a sum of Rs.2,14,50,000/- payable to the complainant towards their insurance claim;

(b) Award interest @ 18% per annum on the insurance amount of Rs.2,14,50,000/- from the date of intimating the opposite party about the fire incident, i.e., 01.03.2016 till the date of payment;

(c) Direct the opposite party to pay litigation expenses incurre