IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 12.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 09.05.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 30.01.2023 in Complaint No. 160/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat)

WITH IA/9338/2023 (Stay) IA/9340/2023 (Exempt. from filing typed copies of docs.) IA/11076/2023 (Early Hearing)

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Delhi Legal Hub, RO (820000) Core-3, 1^st Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi – 110092. … Appellant Versus Priyanka Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.495, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat, Gujarat – 394221. … Respondent BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil Paul, Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Advocate (VC)

For the Respondent : Mr. Shakti Mann, Advocate (VC)

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal u/s 51 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act”) is filed by the OP against the Order dated 30.01.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat (State Commission) in CC No. 160 of 2016 partly allowing the Complaint and directing the OP to pay Rs.27,44,803 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing the complaint till actual realization and Rs.10,000 as costs.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is 135 days delay in filing this Appeal. The said delay was condoned vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Commission.

3. For convenience, the parties in present matter are hereinafter referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that the Complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of art silk cloth manufacturing and printing, operating a factory at GIDC, Surat. The Complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils insurance policy from the Opponent Insurance Company for the factory building, furniture, fixtures, plant, machinery, and accessories, for a sum insured of Rs. 8,70,00,000/- for the period from 15/01/2010 to 14/01/2011, against a premium of Rs.37,039/-. The Complainant alleged that although the premium was received, the Opposite Party (OP) issued only a 3-page policy schedule on 17/02/2011 and described it merely as a certificate of insurance, without furnishing the full policy document or explaining the terms. On 31/10/2010, during the policy period, a fire broke out in the factory's stenter machine at about 10:50 AM, which was extinguished by the fire brigade after about two hours. An FIR was filed, and the incident was promptly reported to the Insurance Company. OP appointed a surveyor, Mr. Khatri, who visited the site briefly and collected documents but did not provide any receipt or undertake a detailed survey. The damaged machine, manufactured by Primatex (now closed), was inspected by Statemac Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., who certified on 05/11/2010 that it was irreparable. A new stenter machine was purchased from Statemac, and Invoice No. 106 dated 16/12/2010 was provided to the Insurer. Despite submission of all relevant documents, the claim amount of Rs. 30,98,135/- (after deducting Rs. 2,60,500 as salvage) has not been paid. A legal notice dated 02/02/2012 was sent by the Complainant, to which the Insurance Company replied on 16/02/2012 alleging non-submission of documents, but without specifying which documents. The Complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and claimed Rs.30,98,135 as loss, Rs.2,00,000 towards mental agony and financial hardship, and costs of litigation.

5. In its written version, the OP contended that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,00,000 due to lack of sufficient records and absence of the FSL report. Despite this, Rs.3,53,332 was paid to the complainant on humanitarian grounds. It was argued that repeated requests were made for documents vide letters dated 01/11/2010, 06/12/2010, 10/01/2011, and 12/05/2011, which went