IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI SECOND APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2025 (From the order dated 26.08.2025 in Appeal No. 120/2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jodhpur )

With IA/14249-52 of2025 (grant of stay, c/d, exemption from filing trial records, exemption from dim documents)

United India Insurance Company Limited Appellant (s)

8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001 Also atMandia Road, LICBuilding, Pali Rajasthan-306401 Versus M/s Saras Products Respondent(s)

Industrial Area Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat District Pali, Rajasthan-306104 Through Proprietor Smt. Sumitra Devi w/o Laxminarayan ladda r/o District Pali Rajasthan-306104 BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant(s) Mr. Rajat Khattry, Advocate Dated : 05.12.2025 ORDER

1. Second Appeal (SA) has been filed with delay of 22 days as per the calculations made by the Registry. An IA No. 14250 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The Delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated therein and case is taken up on merits.

2. Heard counsel for the Appellant.

3. Challenge is to the order dated 26.09.2025 of the State Commission vide which first appeal filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed and order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission vide its order dated 24.08.2022 allowed the complaint with direction to the Opposite Party-Insurance Company to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.26,56,500/- towards loss alongwith interest, compensation and litigation cost etc.

4. Against the claim made for Rs.26,56,000/-, the Insurance Company, based on the report of the surveyor, approved the claim of Rs.5,85,000/- only and the same was challenged before the District Commission.

5. The main issue involved in the present case is about the quantum of Hoss. The incident of fire and consequent loss is not in question. Infact, the State Commission has observed that fire incident was so severe that even one fireman also lost his life due to suffocation while extinguishing the fire. The insured presented all his books of accounts. The surveyor assessed the loss based on volumetric analysis coming to a finding that quantum of lost stock could not have been possibly stored in the godown which caught fire going by volumetric analysis, nothwithstanding that books of accounts showed othen/vise. Surveyor or the Insurance Company have not disputed the veracity of the books of accounts which have been maintained in the normal course of business by the insured and has been audited by the Chartered Accountant.

6. Section 51 (2) envisage Second Appeal to the National Commission if it involves substantial question of law. What constitute substantial question of law and how it differs even from the mere question of law has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan ( deceased ) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs.

Saraswati and Others (2022) 20 SCO 199..

7. Further, Section 51 (3) envisage that such substantial question of law shall be listed in the memorandum of appeal. The appellant in his memorandum of appeal has listed the following substantial question of law:

A. W hether the R espondent can be treated as a consum er within the

m eaning of the term under Section 2(7) of the C onsum er Protection Act,

2019?

B. W hether the Hon'ble State Com m ission and DCDRC overlooked the settled legal principle that a Surveyor's R eport cannot be disregarded w ithout there being any cogent contrary evidence to do so?

C. W hether the Hon'ble State Com m ission and D C D R C erred in awarding R s.26,56,500 based upon fire report and new s-paper cuttings and in the absence of any credible evidence indicating such quantum of loss?

D. W hether the Hon'ble State Com m ission and D C D R C erred in aw arding the am ounts beyond pleadings?

E. W hether the H on'ble State Com m issi