The court confirmed that a bank, as the insured party under a fire insurance policy and beneficiary, qualifies as a consumer entitled to indemnity while condemning the insurer's unjustified claim repudiation.

ORDER

1. This complaint relates to a claim of indemnification under a Fire Insurance policy acquired from the United India Insurance Company Ltd., by the complainant State Bank of India (in short, ‘the SBI’) for the stocks and assets of M/s Sattal Wollens Pvt., Ltd., that had originally joined as a co-complainant. It was pointed out lateron on 19.12.2005 that the Company had under gone liquidation and an official liquidator had already been appointed. Accordingly, the Bank moved an IA through Dy no.743 on 15.04.2000, praying that since the Company had under gone winding up proceedings before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and an Official Liquidator Mr Arvind Shukla was appointed on 27.01.2003, therefore the Company can no longer be represented by its erstwhile Director, hence, the official liquidator deserves to be brought on record. Accordingly, the said application was allowed by the following order of 19.12.2005 which is extracted herein under:

Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon two judgments namely (i) Harsolia Motors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 2005 Vol. I (NC) 27; and (ii) Allahabad Bank vs Canara Bank and Another (200) 4 SCC 406.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to amend the memo of parties along with amended memo of parties.

Application is allowed. Let amended memo of parties be taken on record. Issue notice on the fresh address, as prayed, returnable on 23.05.2006.”

2. Memo of parties were amended, and the Bank became the sole complainant whereas M/s Sattal Wollen Mills was transposed as respondent no.6 through the official liquidator.

3. Mr Joy Basu, learned Sr Counsel along with Mr Rajiv Kapur have advanced their submissions on behalf of the complainant, Mr A K De has advanced his submissions on behalf of the United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Mr Mahapatra has advanced his submissions on behalf of the official liquidator, Mr Krishan Kumar, has appeared for the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and there is no representation on behalf of the 5^th Respondent.

4. With the aforesaid array of parties, the complaint alleges that there was a huge loss in a fire in the factory at Chiktyabad, Dhar, M P on 29.09.1994. The risk of the said fire was covered under a fire insurance policy that was valid for the period 12.01.1994 to 31.01.1995.

5. A preliminary survey was conducted by M/s Manmall Kasliwal and Sons on 29.09.1994 and a preliminary survey report was filed on 05.10.1994. M/s Batawadekar and Company were appointed as final surveyor who also tendered a preliminary report on 29.10.1994 which is extracted herein under:

6. The same surveyor entered into a correspondence with the complainant’s Company as well as with intimation to the insurance company regarding demands of documents, audio and video visual cassettes. Yet, according to the surveyor the material was not provided causing delay as stated in the letters that have been placed on record. The insurance company on 16.03.2000 called upon the SP Fire Brigade, Indore to provide a copy of the fire brigade report. The insurance company had also called upon the complainant to file documents and it appears that the final survey report was tendered on 28.04.1999 which is extracted herein under:

7. A perusal of the same indicates that the preliminary surveyor report has also been supplemented by an addendum with a request to be read in continuation of the preliminary survey report dated 29.10.1994.

8. It appears that another