IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Jurisdiction – Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a material irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.
(2) Rejection on Technical Ground – An insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on sound logic and valid grounds, not purely on technicalities.

JUDGMENT

AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM.—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) assailing the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (the State Commission) Order dated 30.11.2017 in First Appeal No. A/948/2015 partly allowing the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party and modified the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, West Bengal (“District Forum”), Order dated 28.05.2015 in CC No. 634/2014, to the extent of setting aside the direction for payment of punitive damages, while affirming the remaining findings and directions.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant is a businessman running a rice mill under the name and style of Mahadev Rice Mill. He availed a cash credit loan from Opposite Party (OP) - 3 for the purpose of expanding his business. As a pre- condition for sanction of the said loan, the complainant was required to insure the mill building, and accordingly obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from OP-1 and 2 for the period from 29.12.2013 to 28.12.2014 for a sum insured of Rs.9,00,000/-. He paid a premium of Rs.3,034/- towards the policy. The insurance policy expressly excluded kutcha constructions, which were defined therein. After spot verification and satisfaction regarding the nature of construction, the policy was issued. On 21.06.2014, at about 3:30-4:00 AM, a major fire broke out in the rice mill premises, causing extensive damage to the building and destruction of a large stock of paddy. The incident was immediately reported to the Fire and Emergency Services, as well as to Gopalnagar Police Station vide GD Entry No. 956 dated 21.06.2014. The complainant immediately notified OP-3, who in turn informed OP-1 and 2, and thereafter the complainant submitted his insurance claim. Despite repeated representations, including the one dated 14.08.2014 forwarded by OP-3, the claim was repudiated by OP-1 and 2 vide letter dated 10.10.2014 on the basis of a surveyor’s report alleging that the structure was kutcha, which was disputed by the complainant and contradicted by the report of the West Bengal Fire & Emergency Services dated 14.08.2014. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the OPs seeking to pay a sum of Rs.9 Lakh along with interest, penalty/loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental trauma and harassment etc.

4. OP-1 and 2 contested the complaint on the grounds of maintainability and limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, contending that upon receipt of intimation they had appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor, who opined that the godown where the fire occurred was of kutcha construction, which is excluded under the policy. On this basis, they justified the repudiation of the claim, alleging breach of policy terms by the complainant. OP-3, the financing bank, admitted the occurrence of fire and receipt of intimation and police report, but denied any deficiency of service on its part, asserting that no relief was maintainable against it as the bank had merely acted as a financer and facilitator and that the remaining allegations were matters of record not attributable to it.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 30.11.2017, allowed the complaint with the following order:

“As OP No-1 and 2 they appointed surveyor to assess the loss it may be inferred that they have waived the point of delay in intimating the incident of fire to the insurance Company:

Regarding Kachha Construction and Pucca Construction, the report of fire brigade and surveyor is contradictory. When the policy was given by the OP No-1 and 2 to the complainant on the basis of the disputed construction, OP No-1 and 2 should settle the claim on the basis of the policy and the report