2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 25682
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/s Vishesh Creations – Appellant
Versus
United Indian Insurance Co. LTd – Respondent
SC/3/CC/53/2019
ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 23.01.2019 Date of Reserve : 15.02.2022 Date of Decision : 17.03.2022 M/s Vishesh Creations, Uppal Farm, Opp. Apollo Processors, P.O. Central Jail, Ajnala Road, Amritsar, through its partner namely Sh.Vipul Kapoor.
….Complainant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 35, Malkia Chowk, Dharam Singh Market, Amritsar, Punjab- through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person/Managing Director, E-mail ID : customercare@uiic.co.in.
….. Opposite Party Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued By:-
For the complainant : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as, “the Act”). The complainant has averred that the complainant firm is a partnership concern and is into the business of embroidery of fabric and dress material. The complainant –firm took “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” from the opposite party for the period 21.11.2017 to 20.11.2018. The sum insured of the said policy was Rs.70,00,000/- on the complete building, Rs.1,50,00,000/- on the entire machinery and Rs.65,00,000/- on stock-in-trade. Further averred that on 30.06.2018, due to short circuiting of wires from supply cable passing through the trench near the affected Schiffli Embroidery Machine, Model EPOCA-5, the spark fell on the cotton waste lying in the trench causing fire to cotton waste and thus, spread all over the machinery causing major damage to the machine. A worker namely Sh.Subhash Chand went to the spot near the machine and found lot of smoke and flame on the machine near the gate. He then acted spontaneously and tried to extinguish the fire with the extinguisher cylinders in 30-40 minutes, thus, there was no necessity to inform the fire brigade. The opposite party was informed and also information was given to the concerned police chowki about the said incident on 30.06.2018 for lodging the report. During investigation, the police authorities recorded a statement of the concerned worker i.e. Subash Chand and thereafter lodged a DDR No.030 dated 03.07.2018. The opposite party appointed Sh. J.S. Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to visit the factory premises, who visited the premises accompanied with Sh.Sachin Bamotra, Asstt. Manager, D.O.II, Amritsar and Sh.Anil Khanna, Insurance Agent on 30.06.2018, then on 02.07.2018 and prepared a preliminary report dated 10.07.2018. Thereafter, the said officials permitted the complainant to dismantle the damaged parts and proceed with the repair of the affected machine. The complainant contacted local expert technician of the machine. In the meanwhile, Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sent its technician namely Sh.Pankaj Yadav on 01.07.2018 to the complainant’s factory to assess / find out the cause of fire which adversely affected the machine, who gave his report dated 02.07.2018 mentioning therein that some parts are damaged due to external short circuit. The opposite party then appointed second surveyor Sh.Rajan Sharda, B.Com. (Hons.) F.C.A. Surveyor & Loss Assessor to assess the loss who visited the complainant firm on 09.07.2018 and advised to carry out the repair work on the machine and to send the bills. The opposite party subsequently appointed Supreme Testing Lab & Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Pvt. Ltd. for preparing a forensic report qua the claim of the complainant. One Mr. Purushottam Sharma and one Mrs. Mahua Chakraborty visited the complainant firm’s factory on 13.07.2018 and inspected the site and machine, in question and vide email dated 06.08.2018 sent the final report of investigation to the concerned surveyor. Further averred, that even the said surveyor never showed a