ORDER

This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in

service and unfair trade practice on the part

of the Opposite Party, and seeking payment

of the amount claimed under the Insurance Policy.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant, which is a Governmental Company established under the Companies Act, 1956, had procured a Machinery Insurance Policy for the plant and machinery of Unit No.1, Jaldhaka Hydel Project (JHP). This Policy, numbered 100700/44/13/5200000007, was effective from the midnight of 24.05.2013 till 23.05.2014, for a total premium of Rs.3,87,307/- and the sum assured was Rs.25,91,04,226/-. On 02.10.2013, at 18.05hrs., during the initiation of Unit No. 1 at JHP Stage-1, significant hammering noise and vibration occurred. The machine was subsequently shut down due to high water level in the drainage pit and PRV leakage. An immediate inspection revealed an abnormal downstream pressure gauge reading of 10-12Kg/cm2, which should have been 15-16Kg/cm2, in matching the upstream pressure. The machine was deactivated the same night, and in the morning shift inspection on 03.10.2013, similar anomalies were detected, leading to a declaration of the machine as non-operational after a physical inspection of the spiral case. On 27.11.2013, an Incident Report regarding the event of 02.10.2013 was submitted to the Project Manager, JHP by Mr. P.K. Dutta, AE(O), Mr. R. Basak, AE(E), and Mr. S Roy, AE(M) of the Complainant Company. The Chief Engineer of the Procurement & Contracts Department reported the damages to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party on 28.10.2013 and requested the appointment of a Surveyor. Subsequently, a Surveyor was appointed, and a preliminary inspection was conducted on 27.11.2013. A Memorandum of Meeting (MoM) was finalized on 03.06.2014 between the Surveyor/Loss Assessor and the Complainant’s officers. Despite several communications and requests from the Complainant to expedite the claim process, the Opposite Party issued a Repudiation Letter dated 14.03.2018, received by the Complainant’s office on 19.03.2018. Following this, a Legal Notice was sent on 06.06.2019 by the Complainant through its Advocate to demand payment towards the unsettled claim. Getting no positive response to such Legal Notice, the Complainant filed the current complaint.

3. In the backdrop of the facts narrated above, the Complainant has prayed as follows—

“A. Directing the opposite parties to settle/pay/disburse the amount of Rs. 2,63,19,430/- along with 18% interest from the date of claim submission till the date of filing of the instant claim, totaling Rs. 3,93,76,752/- till date;

B. Directing the opposite parties to pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the claimed amount till the realization of the entire amount as claimed;

C. Cancellation/ Setting aside/ Quashing the alleged repudiation letter dated 14-03-2018 and declare the same as bad in the eye of Law, unfounded, baseless, not according to the IRDA rules and the same is not binding upon the complainant.

D. Directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs. 10lakhs for causing harassment upon the complainant due to long delay for processing and settlement of the aforesaid claim;

E. Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for legal expenses and other incidental costs to the complainant...”

4. The Complaint has been contested on behalf of the Opposite Party, which in its Written Version has denied the material contentions raised by the Complainant, but has also asserted that the Complainant reported the loss on 28.10.2013 and despite repeated reminders, the Complainant failed to provide the necessary documents and information requested by the Surveyor. The Surveyor’s Report dated 23.09.2016 highlighted the Complainant’s non-cooperation as a hindrance to a fair assessment of the loss; That Clause 6 of the Policy terms and conditi