The insurer's repudiation of the claim was justified due to the complainant's non-compliance and exaggeration of loss, validated by surveyor reports.

JUDGMENT

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

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 (i) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the Opposite Parties. The complainant therefore prays:-

“A. By award and order, the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally, directed and order either to (i) Reinstate the machinery & stock lost as per particulars of claim, Exhibit “M” or to pay the total claim amount for Rs.1,34,00,000/ .

B. To grant Interest at 2% p.a. above bank rate from 1 9 2005 till payment as per regulation and law.

C. Cost and Expenses incurred and to be incurred at - - Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ for Advocate fees be granted.

D. To grant compensation for harassment and mental torture at - Rs.1,00,000/ .

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he is in the business of offset printing and approached Bharat Co-op. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. OP-2 for a loan and OP-2 agreed to give loan subject to condition that it will obtained the insurance policy for machinery and stock from OP-1/insurer. The complainant contended that OP-2 is the agency of OP-1 with respect to the policy and hired the service and obtained commission. OP-2 is a Bank in business of granting loans for such requirements. Since the bank has insurable interest, they are resorting to taking such policies and take commissions in the transactions. Therefore, OP-2 was liable to be referred to in the complainant as a banker as well as insurance agent and required to protect their interest. Accordingly, the complainant had obtained an insurance policy for sum assured of Rs.1,27,00,000 towards machinery and Rs.25,00,000 towards stocks for the period from 17.01.2005 to 16.01.2006 vide Policy No.140400/11/04/00879 towards the Machinery; and Policy No.140400/00/04/00880 towards the stocks. Thereafter, the complainant had suffered a huge damage in the form of unprecedented heavy rain on 22-27 July, 2005. As a consequence, Mithy river, which flows touching the compound of the building, broke huge wall constructed on the bank of the river and due to heavy flow the water came into the building with great force and everyone was compelled to leave office and run away to save their own lives. Most of the records and documents were carried away in water and thus destroyed.

3. After the incident, the complainant immediately notified OPs and filed a claim on 02.08.2005. Immediately, on receipt of notification, OP-1 appointed M/s. T.K. Gurubuxrai and co. as surveyors. The surveyor had visited the site on 20.08.2005 and again on 24.08.2005 and collected data and details and photographs of machinery, details of damaged machinery and other associated records of documents. He asked for more details of documents which were submitted on 27.08.2005. It is the contention of the complainant that they had obtained Rs.15,00,000 from OP-2 to open the machinery for valuation of loss by the surveyor. The complainant contended that the way survey was carried out was unfortunate and that they were put to severe inconvenience, clearly indicating that OP-1 was not inclined towards fairly assessing the loss occasioned to the complainant. Thereafter, OP-1 appointed one more surveyor, M/s. Ashok Chopra & Co. who visited the premises on 06.10.2005 and complainant once again informed all necessary details to OP-1 as required by OP-1 on 08.10.2005. Subsequently, the second surveyor Mr. Ashok Chopra had sought more information on 15.10.2005 which was provided on 07.11.2005. It is the complainant’s contention that both surveyors started harassing the complainant by asking more and more details notwithstanding the fact that every possible detail available to th