The court ruled that an insurance claim cannot be unfairly repudiated based on misinterpretation of policy terms concerning operational premises.

1. ”The present case is filed under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

2. The Complainant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of mining etc. The Complainant was a shareholder of M/s. Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd and all the three Directors of the Complainant Company namely Rudra Sen Singhu, Capt. Kuldeep Singh Solanki and Virendra Kumar Sehgal were also the Directors of M/s. Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd. The Complainant in order to carry out mining operations had purchased road scraping and premix laying equipment known as Surface Miner. The Complainant got the Surface Miner insured with the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 2,14,20,572, vide Policy No. 3008/51234286/00/000 for the period 9.2.2007 to 8.2.2008, by paying a premium of Rs. 95,455. On 6.4.2007 at about 6,45 p.m., during mining fire broke out in the insured Surface Miner which caused huge damage to the Surface Miner. The Complainant, vide letter dated 6.4.2007, informed the Opposite Party about the fire. On 7.4.2007, the incident was also reported to the Police and the Fire Department. 7.4.2007, the Opposite Party appointed Sri. R.N. Tripathy to conduct initial Survey. On 7.6.2007 joint inspection was carried out by Cummins Service Manager and Diamond Engineering Bhubaneshwar who submitted their report dated 19.6.2007 stating that it was not desirable and economical to repair the engine of the Surface Miner as the complete engine was Beyond Economical Repair (BER). On the basis of above report, the Complainant, vide letter dated 9.7.2007 requested the Opposite Party to process the claim as the Complainant was suffering financial loss. On 20.11.2007 Sri Kavish. C. Malhotra, submitted the Final Surveyor Report in which total loss assessed was Rs. 62,71,700. Though the Complainant gave necessary clarification as sought by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 10.9.2008, repudiated the Claim on flimsy and baseless grounds which reads as please note, the said claim has been repudiated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy (being No. 3008/51234286/00/000) wherein your Company, the Insured, had opted for discount, at the very inception of the policy, on the condition that use of the insured vehicle will be limited to Own Premise of the Insured. However, since the said vehicle was not being used as per the said condition of the said policy we are unable to process claim and regret our inability to do so . Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed a Complaint before this Commission with the following prayer:
(a) direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1.61 crores towards settlement of claim;
(b) direct the opposite parties to pay interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 6.4.2007 i.e. the day of the accidental fire on the aforesaid amount, till the date of payment;
(c) award cost of the present litigation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs;
(d) direct the opposite party to pay liquidated compensation for mental harassment and agony to the tine of Rs.15 lac.
(e) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Commis - sion may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed. 
The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing Written Statement. Opposite Party took a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Consumer Complaint. It was stated that as the Complainant was a ˜commercial entity' it was not a Consumer under S.2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . It was further stated that the instant Complaint was gross misuse of process of law and the Complainant was trying to cover the Surface Miner in the Insurance Policy by hook or by crook