IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 23.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 09.05.2025 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 201 OF 2009 WITH IA/10328/2022 (Directions) Kamalesh Kumar Singhania Liquidator of M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd.

CFL Unit at Gondpur Industrial Area, Near Dharan Kanta Pointa Sahib, Distt. Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. … Complainant Versus M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Himalaya House, 38 J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700 071. … Opposite Party BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER For Complainant : Mr. Abhishek Jain, Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Ms. Ratakshi Sarvaria, Advocates For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Surender, Ms.Meenakshi Yadav, Advs.

JUDGMENT

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

1. I.A. No.10328 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the complainant seeking substitution of the name of the Liquidator, namely, Kamalesh Kumar Singhania as the complainant. For the reasons stated in the said I.A., the same is allowed and name of Kamalesh Kumar Singhania, Liquidator of M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. is impleaded as the complainant in the present Complaint.

2. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed against the Opposite Party seeking to direct the OP:

“(i) Direct payment of the claim of the Complainant of Rs 9.02 cores (ii) Interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the incident in question;

(iii) Damages of Rs. 50,00,000/-

iv) Pass any other or further orders as may deemed fit and proper in the facts circumstances of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that the complainant obtained an Industry Care Policy No. 1501372615200027 from Opposite Party-Reliance General Insurance-(OP) covering the CFL manufacturing unit for ₹10 crores (building, raw materials, finished goods, plant & machinery). An incident of fire which occurred at the premises on 22/23.04.2008 destroyed the insured property. The claim was intimated immediately. On receipt of the claim, OP appointed M/s. Protocol Surveyors to assess the loss. The insurer delayed claim settlement, despite the complainant providing all documents. The surveyor initially verbally assessed raw material loss at ₹4 crores but later recommended only ₹29.92 lakhs against a claim of ₹9.27 crores. The insurer appointed an investigator M/s. Kothari Surveyors, without informing them and refused to share investigation report. The insurer rejected major portions of the claim, citing Finished Goods (CFLs) had no commercial value (No BIS License), raw materials were defective/scrap and that the complainant had no insurable interest in the building (rented property). The Insurer failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time (Regulation 9). Delayed settlement and unfair assessment constitute deficiency in service. The Complainant sought payment of the full claim amount of ₹9.27 crores, compensation for mental harassment and financial losses and interest on the delayed payment.

4. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by OP in its written version and contended that the complainant already approached IRDA under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 and cannot pursue multiple remedies. The claim was processed as per law and the assessment of the surveyor as ₹29.92 lakhs was based on documents the complainant provided. The complainant breached "utmost good faith by concealing that finished goods lacked BIS certification (no market value) and shifting the manufacturing unit without intimating the OP. The insurer rightfully rejected inflated claims for defective/unmarketable goods. Raw materials (circuits) were defective. They had no insurable interest in the rented building. Salvage value of plant/machinery was rightly deducted. As they are a commercial entity, it is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. OP also contended that complex issues require civil court/arbitration, and cannot resolved before the consumer fora.

5. The Complainant filed Rejoinder and rei