JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) has been filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved by repudiation of its insurance claim and seeking direction to the opposite party for payment of insurance claim amount of Rs.64,05,000/- (Sixty Four Lacs Five Thousand) with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing complaint to the complainant with Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental harassment along with cost of litigation and any other reliefs which this Commission deems fit to award.

2. As per averments in the complaint, the complainant obtained an Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy from the opposite party and policy bond was issued by the insurance company opposite party. On 01.12.2017, inside the factory premises, while the factory was in operation fire took place in the F.D. Cooler and ESP. The matter was reported to the insurance company on 01.12.2017, on receipt of which Dr. Mrs. Kiran Chhabra was appointed for preliminary inspection, who visited the premises, inspected the damages and took photographs. Subsequently, claim form was submitted by the complainant, then M/s. J. Baseer & Associates Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as final surveyor. Surveyor Co.’s representative visited the site of loss on 18.12.2017, inspected the loss and took photographs. Thereafter, the Surveyor issued letter of requirement dated 28.12.2017, Annexure-3 to the complainant, which was categorically replied vide letter Annexure-4 with relevant documents and irrelevant documents were denied. The surveyor wanted to deny the liability on the basis of policy conditions. The complainant replied the points raised by the Surveyor but after receipt of reply of the complainant the surveyor kept mum for a long time and thereafter sent an email with new set of issues. But those issues were again replied by the complainant suitably and proved that it has suffered loss of Rs.64,05,000/- for which all the necessary documents and proofs were already provided to the insurance company but the opposite party insurance company has not paid the genuine claim of the complainant and has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence seeking relief as aforesaid in paragraph No.1 the complaint is filed.

3. The opposite parties in their joint written version have admitted the fact of issuance of insurance policy subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has specifically been denied that the fire in F.D. Cooler (Forced Draft Cooler) and ESP (Electro Static Precipitator) is the covered peril under the policy. The opposite parties further submitted that on intimation of the alleged incidence dated 01.12.2017 Dr. Kiran Chhabra was appointed by the opposite parties for preliminary survey, but on receipt of claim form and enhanced estimate of loss of Rs.65,00,000/- the opposite party deputed M/s. J. Basheer & Associates and Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to conduct final survey. Dr. J. Basheer, the Chief Surveyor of M/s. J. Basheer & Associates visited the plant on 18.12.2017, inspected the F.D. Cooler and ESP of Kiln No.03 and observed that due to excessive coal dust collection inside F.D. Cooler and high temperature of flue gas from kiln passing through F.D. Cooler, there was fire inside F.D. Cooler. Hot gas was continuously passing to ESP, resulted in such damage of melting of Air pipes inside the F.D. Cooler and distortion of electrodes and connecting plate in ESP Chamber. The surveyor further observed that factory license was incomplete and the induction furnace unit was closed since last 2-3 years. Documents regarding statutory compliances were asked by the surveyor from the complainant. Thereafter, explaining the function of the F.D. Cooler and ESP, opined that the claim was inadmissible under Section 1A (ii) and Section A Sub-secti