IMPORTANT POINT
Second Surveyor – In the present case, there no valid reasons are stated for the appointment of the second surveyor. There is nothing to suggest that the first surveyor’s report to be arbitrary or the loss determined is excessive so as to repudiate the claim.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.) Member—The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 264 of 2011, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was partly allowed.

2. There was a delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in IA/11954/2016 seeking condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

3. For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present Appeal being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. The Complainant “Shri Khemisati Polysacks Pvt. Ltd.” is a company engaged in manufacturing High-Density Polythene (HDPE), Low-Density Polythene (LDPE) Polythene (LDPE) Polypropylene (PP) woven, and their plant is at Sivasa. “United India Insurance Company Limited is referred to as the Opposite Party or Insurer in this matter.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant Company obtained two insurance policies. A Floater policy bearing No. 021500/11/09/13/00000254; and a Special Peril Policy bearing no. 021500/11/09/11/00000255 with sum insured as Rs. 7.50 Crores and Rs. 19.50 Crores respectively the from OP Insurance Company, covering its assets and stocks.

5. A fire incident on 17.11.2009 caused damage to machinery and stocks due to a short circuit originating from a switch box. CCTV footage recorded the event and the fire was controlled by using available equipment and fire hydrants. The insurance company appointed ‘M/s. SD Aras & Associates’ as the official Surveyor to assess the loss. The said Surveyor valued the loss as Rs.19,29,176/-. The OP insurance company, however, later raised concerns about the Surveyor’s report and engaged M/s Decent Investigators to review the matter. The said investigators went into the case, identified certain discrepancies and inconsistencies in the accident and the actions taken by the Respondent. As a sequel, the insurance company repudiated the claim and communicated the same to the Respondents vide letter dated 05.07.2011.

6. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim under Fire Insurance Policies, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Insurer, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint (No. 264 of 2011) before the learned State Commission, Maharashtra, claiming an amount of Rs.19,29,176/- with interest @ 15% per annum on account of the loss due to fire from 1.4.2010 till the actual date of payment and amount of Rs.2,35,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

7. The OPs/Insurer, in their written version, denied the claim. It was stated that due to certain irregularities detected within the Surveyor’s Report, an investigation was initiated to establish the precise cause of the damage. One of the grounds for repudiation was the Complainant’s failure to furnish the Fire Brigade report pertaining to the incident. The Surveyor’s report was finalized and forwarded for claim settlement without receiving the requisite details during the survey process. Further, the machines claimed to have undergone repairs and restored to operational condition were subjected to inspection by the appointed investigator. It was uncovered that the agency responsible for repairs had already discontinued their repair activities. Notably, the printing machine, which was purportedly damaged, lacked the identification plate, which is an obligatory requirement for machinery damage claims. Additionally, prior to the initiation of the claim process, it was reported that the damaged machinery was sent for repair to ‘M/s. New Rajpur Engineering Works.’ However, the investigation revealed that the said entity had transitioned from repair operations to trading in chemicals, dyes, solvents etc. These grounds were cited in their comm