Consumer claims under insurance policies must adhere strictly to stated terms, and failure to understand these terms does not equate to negligence by the insurer.

1. Complainant is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing different grades of Whole Tyre Reclaim Rubber Sheet, Natural Tube Reclaim Rubber Sheet, Buty Tube Reclaim Rubber Sheet, EPDM Rubber Sheet Rubber Powder, Plastic Granules etc. It was enjoying cash credit facilities from M/s. Dena Bank. Per the plaint, Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the bank's sanction letter dated 24.9.2010 , required the goods to be fully insured against the risk fire, theft, burglary, SRCC with bank clause. M/s. Dena Bank was taking insurance on behalf of the complainant from the Insurance Company of its choice by acting as an agent of opposite party No. 2 ( M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited). It used to get signatures on blank proposal form of the Insurance Company and get the insurance accordingly. The copy of the insurance policy was also retained by the bank itself and it was never handed over to the complainant as the complainant was assured that its risk is always covered as it bank is also covered equally (para 8 of the amended complaint).

2. On 22.4.2011, a fire took place in the factory premises of the complainant. A claim of Rs. 3,85,12,069 was lodged with the opposite party through the bank. Surveyor was appointed and the gross loss was assessed at Rs. 3,04,90,808. However, the amount recommended by the surveyor to the OP was Rs. 99,80,959; this was further reduced to Rs. 94,91,411, after taking into account Rs. 10,000 deductible as per Clause 1(b) of the general exclusions of the policy and the excess of 5% of claim amount to the tune of Rs. 4,99,548. This amount, Rs. 94,91,411, was paid into the cash credit account of the complainant directly under the bank clause without any information / consent of the complainant. Hence, a consumer complaint, amended subsequently, was filed with the following prayer:
'(a) Direct the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,30,777.00 along with interest @18% p.a. on the aforesaid grounds in the interest of justice or
(b) In the alternative direct the opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,30,777.00 along with interest @18% p.a. on the aforesaid grounds in the interest of justice,
(c) Direct the opposite party No. 2 additional 1% of the claim amount for removing / shifting the debris against the policy conditions.
(d) Direct the opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 12,16,484.00 as the difference of salvage as the salvage value has been taken at the same rate for all the items though there is no value of salvage of rubber parts and chemicals.
(e) Grant pendent lite and future interest @18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,90,30,777 against the opposite party against whom the award is passed and against the opposite party No. 2 on sum of Rs. 12,16,484.00
(f) Award of cost of Rs. 10,00,000 against the opposite party against who the award is passed may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
(g) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties may also be passed.'

3. This complaint was resisted through a written version / reply by the opposite party (OP hereafter). Rejoinder to the reply along with affidavit of evidence was filed by the complainant. OP also filed affidavit by way of evidence. Short written synopsis of arguments were filed by the parties. Arguments were heard on 2.2.2021 and order was reserved.

4. Learned Counsel for the complaint drew