Insurance liability must strictly adhere to policy terms, and a complainant must establish their claim's coverage.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER

1. This consumer complaint has filed under Section 21 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , against the Opposite Party (OP) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. alleging deficiency in service wherein, the complainant contended that the rightful insurance claim is denied and sought the following reliefs:

A. To direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an aggregate amount of Rs.3,70,05,039 as per the particulars of the claim made along with interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.3,70,05,039 towards both the Insurance Policies No. OG-13- 1901-4001-00000797 and Insurance Policy No. OG-14-1901- 4002-00000014;

B. Award of compensation to the of Rs.25,00,000; and costs.

2. Dimple Drums and Barrels Pvt Ltd, the complainant has been in the business of manufacturing steel barrels since the year 1978 from a plot situated in Glasunde village, Mumbai. The Plot had the structures of the manufacturing plant delineated as unit No.1, 2, 3 and 4. separately and was provided with a boundary wall. It is the contention of the complainant that the existing structures in the plant as of the year 1997 was Unit No.1 was used for engineering activity of manufacture of steel barrels; Unit No.2. was kept vacant for the manufacture of plastic drums; Unit No.3 was the office building; and Unit No.4 was the guest house. In the course of time, the complainant had commenced fabrication of manufacturing both Steel Barrels as well as Plastic Drums from same plant at the space delineated. It is the contention of the complainant that the plot is big enough for all the four units. In the year 2003, the complainant had approached Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. the Opposite Party (OP) Insurer for issue of Standard Fire and Special Spirals Policy to cover the engineering and manufacturing unit structures at Units No. 1 & 2. Accordingly, the OP Insurer issued the complainant a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy which covered Units No. 1 & 2. This process continued till the year 2007. In the year 2007, the complainant sought to extend the insurance cover to include the cover to other units viz. the office building and guest house, at Unit No. 3 & 4. The OP causes necessary assessment and as demanded by the OP, the premium was paid in respect of all the four units in the year 2007. In addition to the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, the complainant had approached the OP and sought a Consequential Loss (Fire) Policy to ensure protection against loss of profit on account of fire. In the year 2009, the complainant commenced another engineering activity at the same site for manufacture of HM HDPE drums (plastic drums) from Unit No.2. Thereafter, the complainant once again approached OP and sought Fire Insurance policy, and Loss of Profit policy against fire in respect of only the Plant, Machinery and Raw Material associated with the manufacture of plastic drums, since the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by OP was restricted only to „plastic goods, manufacturing (excluding foam plastics) above 15,000 blu/1b of the complainant. It is the specific contention of the complainant that, post issue of the policies, the OP had undertaken a survey of the complainant‟s factory premises in 2010 and filed a risk inspection report dated 30.08.2010. Thereafter, in September 2010, the insurance agents informed the complainant that the opposite party refused to continue with and/or renew the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the OP in respect of Plastic Goods Manufacturing (Excluding Foam Plastics) above 15000 blu 1b. As the OP