ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the National Insurance Co Ltd (‘the Opposite Party - OP) seeking to direct the OP:—

a) To pay a sum of Rs.3,61,05,784/- along with the interest @ 18% till the date of realization;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Complainants for causing undue mental and physical pain, agony and harassment to the Complainant;

c) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the cost and Litigation Expenses;

d) To pass such other order(s) which this Commission as deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainants and against the OP.

2. Brief facts of the case as contended in the complaint are that the complainant is a Public Ltd Company engaged in manufacturing of BOPP Films and BOPET Films, with Head Office in New Delhi and a manufacturing plant in Nashik. The company obtained a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from the OP (insurance company) for the safety of its goods. The policy No. 350100/11/12/3400000047 was valid from 01.05.2012, to 30.04.2013, with a total coverage of Rs.220 crores. The sum insured for stocks at different plant locations was categorized as on stock of Raw Material, Finished goods at BOPET Plant, BOPP Film Plant: Rs.55 Cr; Stock of Raw Materials, Finished Goods at BOPET Plant: Rs.60 Cr; and Stock of Raw Materials, Finished Goods and Like at BOPP Plant: Rs.30 Cr. This cover was increased to Rs.220 Cr through endorsements, detailing specific cover for raw materials, finished goods, and work-in-progress at various plants.

3. On 27.03.2013, a fire broke out at the manufacturing plant in Nashik, causing extensive damage to stocks/ goods. They reported the incident to the insurer vide email and post on 28.03.2013. Fire brigade was informed and a police complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered. The OP insurer appointed Mr. Pradeep Tambe, a surveyor who inspected the premises and demanded certain records from the complainant. They submitted all required records reflecting the actual loss suffered, vide letter dated 20.12.2013. The surveyor’s report dated 25.06.2014 assessed Rs.3,20,94,032 as loss. However, he concluded that the loss was outside the policy’s coverage scope. On 08.10.2014 the complainant raised objections against the surveyor report, providing a point-by-point rebuttal. They averred that the goods destroyed (e.g., polyester chips and synthetic waste) were covered under the definitions of “finished goods,” “raw materials,” or “other goods” in the policy. They emphasized that the goods destroyed in the fire are excisable under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and excise duty was paid on them, as confirmed by a certificate from the Central Excise Dept. The destroyed goods were also recorded in their RG1 Register and audited financial statements as finished goods. Vide letter dated 03.03.2015, the claim was repudiated by OP, upholding the surveyor report. It is the complainant’s contention that this decision was unjustified, self-contradictory, and failed to consider the actual loss and policy terms. The OP failed to discharge its obligations under the policy, amounting to a “deficiency in services” and negligence causing significant financial loss, mental agony, and harassment. He sought compensation for loss, damages for mental harassment.

4. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the OP by filing their written statement and raising, inter-alia, the preliminary issues that; the OP invokes General Condition No. 6(ii) of the policy, asserting that the claim is time-barred since no legal action was initiated within 12 months of the claim’s repudiation on 03.03.2015. The complaint filed in March 2017 is thus invalid. OP denied the allegations of deficiency of service and contended that the complaint is frivolous and baseless. The service was availed by the complainant for commercial purposes, disqualify