IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 24/05/2018 in Complaint No. 532/2014 of the State Commission Delhi)

WITH IA/17062/2018(Stay), IA/17063/2018(Condonation of delay), IA/13746/2025 (Early Hearing)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Delhi Regional Office Kanchenjunga Building

8th Floor, Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110001. Appellant Versus Vijayalakshmi Printing Works Pvt. Ltd.

B-117, Sector-5, Noida-201301, Utter Pradesh Through its Authorized Representative Sh. M. Bhati Respondent BEFORE:

HON’BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd)

PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For Appellant(s) Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate Ms. M. Krishnakanta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. H.C. Suki, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chaturvedi, Advocate Dated : 22.01.2026

ORDER

1. This First Appeal has been filed by Opposite Party (OP) under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (the State Commission) Order dated 24.05.2018 in C.C. No.532 of 2014, wherein the Complaint was partly allowed.

2. As per the report of Registry, there is 69 days delay in filing this Appeal. For reasons stated in IA No. 17063/2018 the same is condoned.

FA/1617/2018

3. For convenience, the parties in the present case are being referred to as per the complaint before the State Commission. Vijaylakshmi Printing Works Pvt. Ltd. is the Complainant and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is referred to as the Opposite Party (OP).

4. The present Appeal arises out of an insurance claim wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant before the State Commission was allowed, directing the OP/lnsurer to pay ^47,99,055 along with interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realization.

5. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the OP/Appellant is that the Insurer was never served with notice of the proceedings before the State Commission. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 was passed ex parte by the State Commission. He argued that, while it was the Complainant who placed the surveyor report on record, the State Commission strangely proceeded to allow the entire claim by travelling beyond the surveyor’s report, without assigning any cogent reasons for discarding the said report. According to the Appellant, such an approach is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for Complainant/ Respondent argued that the Complainant suffered severe hardship due to the inordinate delay in settlement of the insurance claim. The State Commission duly examined the deficiencies and violations in the surveyor’s report and, for reasons recorded in Para-9 of the impugned order, and rightly allowed the complaint in total, along with interest @ 8% per annum. As regards the contention of the OP with respect to service of Notice, he relied on the Receipt of notice served upon the OP in the form of Acknowledgment due, duly stamped by the OP/ Insurer, evidencing receipt of service of notice by State Commission.

7. \Ne have heard learned counsel for both parties at length and carefully perused the records.

8. As regards the contention that the Insurer was never served with notice of the proceedings before the State Commission, the learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent produced a copy of the receipt of Acknowledgment Due evidencing service of notice upon the OP/lnsurer, duly stamped and acknowledged. The said receipt has been accepted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant/lnsurer. In view of the acceptance of the Acknowledgment Due, duly stamped by the OP/lnsurer, the objection raised with respect to non-service of notice is untenable and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. The role, relevance and evidentiary value of a surveyor’s report have been authoritatively stated by the Hon’ble Supr