An insurance policy is a location-specific contract, and an insurer is not liable to indemnify losses occurring at premises other than those explicitly specified in the insurance policy schedule, regardless of whether the locations are within the same geographical district.

HON’BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER

For Jasoda Patel & Kalinga Gypsum : Sh. Rutwik Panda, Advocate & Ms. Anshu Malik, Advocate

For Universal Shampoo: Sh. D. Varadarajan and Rajat Khattry, Advocates

Dated: 07th April, 2026

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. The present first appeals bearing no. 985 of 2023 and 271 of 2024 are proposed to be decided by common order being involving similar questions of law and facts. The parties are referred here in accordance with the memo of party in first appeal no. 985 of 2023. Briefly stated relevant facts as detailed in the complaint are that the appellant 1/the complainant 2/Jasoda Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant no 1”) is the Director of the company and appellant 2/the complainant 1/Kalinga Gypsum private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant no 2”) is a Private Limited Company. The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing gypsum powder at their factory. To commence their business operations, the appellants had availed two loans from respondent no 3/opposite party no. 3/Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent no 3”) one being a Term Loan with a sanctioned limit of Rs.50,00,000/- bearing Loan Account No. 50228779416, and the other a Cash Credit Loan with a sanctioned limit of Rs.20,00,000/- bearing Loan Account No. 50259410840. The appellants have duly repaid and cleared the aforementioned loan amounts in full. The appellants had obtained two insurance policies from respondent no 1/opposite party No. 1 /Director, Universal Sampoo General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent no 1”) and respondent no 2/the opposite party No. 2/Manager, Universal Sampoo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent no 2”) upon payment of the requisite premiums (i) a Standard Fire and Peril Policy bearing Policy No. 2114/55490964/03/000 dated 09.10.2018, and (ii) a Burglary Policy bearing Policy No. 2913/55490963/03/000 dated 10.10.2018. The sum insured under each of these policies was Rs.70,00,000/- for the period from 11.10.2018 to 10.10.2019.

1.1 The appellant’s factory and machinery on 03.05.2019 suffered extensive damage due to the devastating Super Cyclone “Fani.” The appellants claim that the loss sustained amounted to Rs.63,33,000/-. The said incident was promptly reported to respondent nos. 1 and 2 who thereafter deputed their surveyor to conduct spot verification on 10.05.2019 and again on 05.09.2019. The surveyor, upon assessment, quantified the loss at Rs.12,09,188/-. However, the appellants submitted a claim form before respondent nos. 1 and 2 seeking compensation of Rs.63,33,000/-. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the said claim was not settled. Subsequently, on 01.10.2019, the appellants issued a legal notice through their advocate to respondent nos. 1 and 2 calling upon them to settle the claim. However, the respondents failed to comply. The appellants being aggrieved filed the present consumer complaint under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) titled as Kalinga Gypsum (p) Ltd. & another V Universal Sampoo General Insurance Company Limited & others bearing no 84/19 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”). The appellants prayed that the respondents no. 1 & 2 be directed to settle the claim amount of Rs.63,33,000/- in their favour. The appellants have further prayed for an award of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensat