Insurance policies must be interpreted strictly as written, with no liability for claims that fall outside defined coverage parameters.

1. The Complainant is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar at its unit located at Mudhol Taluq, District Balakot, Karnataka. The Complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Policies covering (i) the stock of baggase / bagas, etc. kept in the factory premises (ii) stocks of sugars in godowns / in process / in yards and stocks of spares / packing materials / firewood, etc., and (iii) stocks of molasses kept in the factory / compound. The Policies did not cover spontaneous combustion. The Complainant had taken another Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 67070011120100000982 for the period 31.3.2013 to 30.3.2014 covering the stocks of Rs.10 crores due to spontaneous combustion, for which the Complainant paid additional premium. The Opposite Party made additional endorsement in the Policy regarding perils of spontaneous combustion.

2. Case of the Complainant is that on 20.4.2013 at about 11.30 p.m. it was observed that the molasses stored in the RCC storage tanks suffered spontaneous combustion followed by foaming and frothing and overflowing out of the tanks. The quantity of the affected molasses was 15,332.98 MT. The fire brigade was called and the Police was also informed of the incident. The Opposite Party was intimated of the loss, who deputed Surveyors M/s Integral Assessors, Hyderabad. The Complainant submitted all documents sought by the Surveyor and filed a claim on 28.5.2013 for Rs.919.98 lakhs towards loss of molasses and Rs.93 lakh for damage of RCC tank. The Surveyor submitted Final Survey Report on 5.12.2013. On the basis of the Survey Report, the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 25.7.2014, repudiated the claim on the ground that (i) the location of the damaged molasses not being covered under the subject Policy and (ii) the spontaneous combustion not having led to ignition / fire does not fasten any liability upon the Insurer.

3. Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay the following:
"(1) the aggregate principal sum of Rs.9.1998 crores,
(2) the interest amounting to a sum of Rs.1,93,19,580 till the date of the filing of the instant Complaint calculated at the prevailing commercial rate of 12% per annum from the date of the raising of the first Claim, namely 28.5.2013 and further interest at the same rate till the date of payment by the Opposite Party,
(3) the cost of the instant proceedings and
(4) the legal expense in the sum of Rs.22 lac incurred prior to and upon the institution of the instant proceedings.
Any other or further relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case may also be granted in favour of the Complainant Company."

4. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint by filing written statement on the ground that this Commission did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate as it involved complicated questions of facts and law and was triable by a Civil Court. The Complainant did not implead the Bank in the Complaint though it was a necessary Party. The Complaint was bad for non - joinder of necessary and proper party. It was also submitted that the Complainant was a commercial entity and the Insurance Policy purchased by the Complainant was for commercial purpose. The Complainant was, thus, not a Consumer under S.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

5. On merits, it was stated that the Complainant had taken Standard Fire and S