,-/v I IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI NC/CC/171/2008nmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA M/s Park Leather Industries Ltd. ... Complainant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ... Opp. Parties BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Complainant NONE For the Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. De, Advocate Ms. Ananya De, AdvocateMLKJIHGFEDCBA Dated : 17.02.2026lkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

ORDER

This matter had been adjourned on three occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the complainant to enable him to provide a calculation chart that was required to be prepared in terms of our order dated

02.09.2025. The order dated 02.09.2025 is extracted herein under: -

“Heard learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. De, learned counsel for the opposite parties/lnsurance Company.

The complaint was finally heard and allowed by this Commission on

01.08.2022. While computing the claim and the quantification of the amount of indemnification, this Commission relied on the calculations estimated by a surveyor appointed by the complainant Mr. U.K. Sharma who computed the amount to the tune of Rs.46,97,085/-. The Commission proceeded on the presumption that since this computation has not been contested by the Insurance Company, therefore, the same deserves to be indemnified to the complainant along with interest.

The order dated 01.08.2022 was assailed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 913 of 2023 and an interim order was granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount.

The appeal has been finally allowed on 07.04.2025 on the short ground that the quantification made by this Commission, solely based on the report of the surveyor appointed by the complainant, was not correct as an independent mind ought to have been applied for arriving at a correct

2MLKJIHGFEDCBA conclusion and therefore to that limited extent the matter has been remanded back to this Commission. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the order of the Apex Court are extracted hereunder:

"10. In any event, it is patently clear that the NCDRC did not independently apply its mind to the quantification of the claim and blindly acted upon the alleged failure of the appellant to deny the assessment in the surveyor's report produced by the respondent. This impression, as pointed out earlier, was unfounded and erroneous. It would, therefore, be just and proper that the NCDRC undertakes that exercise now, by allowing the parties to adduce evidence in that regard, and then decide the amount that would be payable to the respondent under the insurance policy.

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed to that extent and the matter is remitted to the NCDRC for consideration afresh of the quantum of compensation that would be payable to the respondent under the subject insurance policy for the damage and loss suffered by the respondent due to the collapse of the factory shed on 01.08.2005. Given the antiquity of this case, we would request the NCDRC to give it priority and dispose of the same expeditiously.

12. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry, presently invested in a fixed deposit, shall abide by the final decision of the NCDRC. The Registry is directed to forthwith transfer the sum of ^63,60,833/-, along with the interest accrued thereon, to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, under proper acknowledgement. The amount shall thereupon be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank with auto-renewal facility and shall await the final decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No. 171 of 2008."

Accordingly, the matter is listed today but the learned counsel for the complainant submits that he may be permitted to pointedly prepare a chart with regard to the exact nature of the calculations, which, according to him, appear to be correct after comparing with the survey report that has been tender