An insurance provider cannot deny claims based on exclusion clauses when the damage is not attributable to those exclusions.

1. M/s. Dujodwala Products Ltd., Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) has filed the present Revision Petition under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the Impugned Order dated 4.9.2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. A / 15/313, whereby the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Insurance Company) and had set aside the Order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Raigad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alibagh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) and dismissed the Complaint filed by M/s. Dujodwala Products Ltd., the Complainant.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals, having their factory at Kumbhivali, Taluka - Khalapur, Dist. Raigad. The Complainant Company sells their products within and outside India. The Complainant Company was required to supply their products to M/s. Saudi Rook Wool Factory at Riyadh. As the product was sensitive in nature and the temperature was required to be maintained at 5o C or less to save the product from damage, they hired a Container bearing No. MWCU6037091, having inbuilt refrigeration system from M/s. MAERSK India Pvt. Ltd. The products were packed in 109 metal drums and were stuffed in the Container and then the Container was loaded on a motor vehicle for taking the same to JNPT, Nhava Sheva on 14.10.2006 for onward transportation to Riyadh. The Complainant had insured that Container with Opposite Party Insurance Company by obtaining Insurance Policy No. 26500/21.6.4600000/647 covering all risks. Before the products were packed in the Container, temperature of the Container was checked and found that it was at the requisite level. On 18.10.2006 at about 12.38 p.m. the Complainant Company received message from M/s. MAERSK India Pvt. Ltd. informing that the Container could not be shipped Overseas as the Container did not maintain requisite temperature due to technical problem in the refrigeration system. Complainant had taken immediate action as the products were sensitive to temperature and they had brought back the Container to their factory on 19.10.2006. Due to rising of temperature in Container, quality of products suffered. The Complainant Company lodged Insurance claim with Opposite Party Insurance Company for getting the cost of the Products. The Opposite Party Insurance Company deputed M/s. A & Shaikh Co. (hereinafter referred to as Surveyor) to assess the loss. The Surveyor verified the Container by visiting factory on 19.10.2006 and assessed the loss to the tune of 12,22,869 after deducting 5% of total value of the products towards salvage value. However, the Opposite Party Insurance Company vide letter dated 26.12.2006 repudiated the Claim on the ground that the damage to the Products was caused due to change in temperature because of improper packing which resulted into change in temperature and the same was not covered under the Policy. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Insurance Company, the Complainant Company filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) The Opponent may please be ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of 12,94,731 along with the interest at the rate of 13% and including notice charges of 1,500 and other expenses, as the Hon. Court may deem fit.
(b) The Opponent may please be ordered to pay