A claimant must establish evidence of coercion in accepting insurance settlement to prevail in a deficiency of service claim under the Consumer Protection Act.

1. This complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') has been filed seeking the enhancement of an insurance claim filed with the opposite party with compensation alleging deficiency in service. The complainant is a proprietorship firm which had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Insurance Policy (in short, the 'Policy") from the opposite party for Rs 3.10 crores for his premises which was completely damaged in a fire due to an electrical short circuit on 13.2.2013.

2. The facts as per the complainant are that he has a grain cleaning and colour sortex unit at C - 98, Additional MIDC, Latur since 2012 with imported plant and machinery worth Rs 2.25 crores covered by the Policy dated 23.11.2012. The fire incident on 13.2.2013 destroyed machinery, building and godown though the fire brigade was summoned. An FIR No. 2/2013 was registered with the Police and opposite party informed the same day. Cunningham & Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. was appointed surveyors on 14.2.2013 and various documents shared with them per correspondence. The complainant filed a claim for Rs 2,86,00,000. The imported Sortex machine was inspected by the suppliers, M/s Buhler (India) along with other machines and it was assessed by them that the machines were extensively damaged the repair of which would cost the same as a new machine. On 25.2.2013, one G. Chandrashekhar, an investigation consultant was appointed by the opposite party who sent samples for verification to establish the cause of the fire. An inspection was also undertaken by one Rajesh D. Pandey, Government Contractor on 24.4.2013.

3. The complainant repaired the godown which was the adjoining building but states that the main building was not repairable and could not be done. It is stated that the delay in settlement of the claim resulted in further damage to the machinery due to exposure to the elements. Despite being provided names of 3 consultants by the complainant to assess damage to the steel structure and shed, opposite party appointed another consultant, M/s Delcos Consultants India Pvt. Ltd, Pune. Details were provided by complainant to them also. Despite the fact that it was visually apparent that the steel structure had been destroyed in the fire, the report of M/s Delcos dated 16.10.2013 was that it was intact.

4. The State Bank of India issued a notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the complainant for settlement of dues which put the complainant under pressure. On 3.12.2013 the claim was settled for Rs.1,12,39,656 which was consented to by the complainant not voluntarily but under coercion and undue pressure due to the delaying tactics of the opposite party. The discharge voucher was signed and on 28.12.2013 the claim was transferred to the complainant's account with the State Bank of India.

5. The complainant states that the opposite party committed deficiency in service by not completely indemnifying the complainant to the loss especially when the claim was fully covered under the policy. The total loss was Rs 2,86,00,000 and the opposite party assessed it as Rs 1,12,39,656 holding that some parts of the machinery were intact or not severely damaged, whereas they had been reduced to scrap. It is stated that consent had been obtained by undue influence and coercion through pressure by getting notices from the Bank issued, inordinate delay in settling the claim much beyond the stated period of 30 days in the policy. It is contended that the surveyor erred in undervaluing the machinery and structure which had been used only for 7 to 8 months prior to the fire. The remittance of the claim amount to the loan account of the