ORDER

The present Revision Petitions have been filed by The Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Insurance Company) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the Orders dated 11.01.2016 in Appeal Nos. 319 and 347 to 350 of 2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals by affirming the findings recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’).

2. It is relevant to mention here that five separate Consumer Complaints involving similar facts and question of law were filed against which similar defence was taken by the Insurance Company in all the cases. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all these Revision Petition are similar except change in Policy numbers, these Revision Petitions are being disposed off through this Common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2307 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. CC/56/2008.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (herein referred to as the Respondent/Complainant Company), was awarded contract by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for protecting the eroded river margin and construction of groynes at various locations in Andhra Pradhesh. Before commencement of works at Sakhinetipalli for Erection, construction of Groyens at KM 1.250, the Respondent/Complainant Company obtained insurance covers for covering the risk of the construction work from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company) vide Policy No.432504/404/13/ENGG/CAR/2006/57. The Complainant Company commenced the work as per the schedule of contractors shown in the Insurance policy by covering the work period from 2.5.2005 to 1.10.2006 and the maintenance period from 2.10.2005 to 1.10.2007. The Respondent/Complainant Company’s work at Sakhinetipalli village commenced on 2.5.2005 making construction of groyons, dumping scones and other materials and while the work was in progress, there was heavy flow of flood water in the river on 8.8.2005 and 10.3.2005, due to the heavy inflow of flood water, the groyens were damaged and disturbed on account of which the Respondent/Complainant Company sustained heavy loss and the said fact was immediately informed to the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company on 16.8.2005. On 17.8.2005, the preliminary survey was conducted by Sri K.V.R. Krishna, Surveyor, Kakinada who assessed the damaged portion of Groyens at Sakhinetipalli village and subsequently the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company appointed Mr. A. Ramalingeswara Rao as Final Surveyor to assess the work loss and estimate the damage done to the work. The Final Surveyor assessed the loss to Rs.13,54,563/-. Despite this, the claim of the Respondent/Complainant was repudiated by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company. Despite several requests, repeated remainders and service of a legal notice when the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the Respondent/Complainant Company, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company, the Respondent/Complainant Company filed consumer complaints before the District Forum seeking direction to the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest at 24% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaints till the date of realization and award costs of the Complaint.

4. The matter was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Insurance Company before the District Forum. It was contended that the work executed by the Complainant was an