Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3308
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON’BLE MR. A. P. SAHI, President, HON’BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, Member
M/s. Satia Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 383 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. J.P. Nahar
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Orenvungo Ezung
Insurance claims must indemnify against losses reasonably arising from covered events; operational oversight during repairs does not negate liability if conducted under expert supervision.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d) and 21(a) - Insurance claim for loss due to boiler explosion - Complainant claimed a loss of Rs. 3,34,63,781/- but was awarded only Rs. 10,97,240/- by the insurance company after a survey. Court found that the insurer's refusal to indemnify the full claim was unjustified; the evidence supported that the loss was covered under the insurance policy. It was ruled that operation of the boiler post-repair was under supervision of experts, and the damages incurred were part of the original explosion claim. Compensation awarded for full assessed loss. (Paras 1-75)
(B) Insurance Claims - Estimation of loss - The court emphasized that after the explosion on 15.11.2012, various assessments were made, concluding the loss should be calculated as per the original assessment. The initial offer from the insurance company was deemed inadequate given the extent of the damage documented. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 25, 30, 71)
(C) Boiler Operations - The directive from the manufacturer to cease operations was acknowledged, but the court found that subsequent operations were consistent with assessments and did not lead to aggravated loss as claimed. (Paras 32, 36, 68)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details about insurance claim. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding accident occurrence and insurance liability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on surveyor's assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. details about damage assessment and liability debates. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. assessment of damages and insurer's defense. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. constitution of expert opinions and inspections. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. provisional repair recommendations and repercussions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. trial runs and its insurance coverage implications. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. submission of additional facts and assessments. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. court findings on indemnity and liability. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. assessment results and compensation judgments. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 12. conclusion on liability and compensation amounts. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. final court conclusion and directive. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 383 OF 2016 WITH IA/3087/2017(Condonation of delay), IA/3676/2017(Placing addl. documents), IA/3701/2018(Permission to file Evidence)
M/s. Satia Industries Ltd.
Village Rupana, Sri Muktsar Sahib-152032(Punjab)
Through its Company Secretary Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dhuria ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Head Office, 24, Whites Roads, Chennai-600014 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office-I, 8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through Its Chief Regional Manager
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office, 42 C, 3rd floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi -110024 through its Senior Divisional Manager
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch office, 42 C, 3rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi -110024 through its Senior Branch Manager
5. M/s. Shreyash Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
S.C.O. 28, 3rd Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana -141001 Through its director ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER For the Complainants : Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Orenvungo Ezung, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON:
ORDER
1. This Complaint is filed by the Complainant contending that the Insurance Company has failed to indemnify the entire claim of the loss of the boiler of the Complainant unit, the cost whereof to be compensated was claimed at Rs.3,34,63,781/-. As against this claim the Insurance Company recommended and approved an indemnification for Rs.10,97,240/- on 03.09.2015. Aggrieved the present complaint was filed praying for the indemnification of the entire claimed amount as mentioned above together with 18% interest till the date of its realization from the date of loss.
2. A further prayer was made to release the amount of Rs.10,97,240/- as approved by the Insurance Company on 03.09.2015. The complaint was admitted and notices issued on 10.03.2016, whereafter the written statement was permitted to be filed after setting aside the order of proceeding ex-parte to which a rejoinder was also filed. The affidavit of evidence and the short synopsis was directed to be filed and taken on record. The Covid intervened thereafter and the matter stood adjourned on several occasions whereafter it was taken up on 23.04.2024, when the following order was passed:-
“Heard learned counsel for the complainant.
The present claim is in respect of the damage caused to a Boiler in a paper manufacturing plant where the explosion occurred accidentally on 15.11.2012. The Insurance claim was initiated with intimation to the Insurance Company on 16.11.2012 where-after the Insurance Company appointed M/s Rohit Kumar & Company as the Surveyors. A survey report stated to be a final report was submitted on 11.04.2013.
The complainant had intimated the extent of damage caused and the repairs that had
