IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 30.05.2016 Date of reserving the order: 19.01.2026 Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 624/2016 IN THE MATTER OF MRS. USHA W/O MR. HARISH GUPTA THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF MADHAV ENTERPRISES AT 68, HARISH HOUSE, YUSUF SARAI, NEW DELHI.

…Complainant (Through: Mr. Sanchit Gupta, Advocate Mob.8700778596 &

Email: advsanchit1994@gmail.com)

VERSUS

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

BANCASSURANCE BRANCH N-1, DMC HOUSE CANNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI -110001 Opposite Party No. 1 (Through: Ms. Geeta Malhotra, Adv.

(Mob. 9810766150 &

Email: advgeetamalhotra@gmail.com)

2. BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGER SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE BRANCH B-6/8, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, CHOWDHARY HARSUKH MARG, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI-110029 …OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2 (Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, Advoacte, Mob.9810282890 &

Email: legalaxis.ps@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Sanchit Gupta, counsel for the Complainant (Mob. 8700778596 & Email: advsanchit1994@gmail.com)

OP No.1 was proceeded exparte, however, Ms. Geeta Malhotra, counsel appeared on its behalf.

(Mob. 9810766150 & Email: advgeetamalhotra@gmail.com)

None for OP No.2.

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:

“i) That the direction may kindly be issued in favour of the claimant and against the opposite party No.1 directing the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.48,97,562/- towards the compensation qua the insured goods, Rs.5 Lakhs towards the damages for mental tension and agony.

ii) That the direction may also be issued in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party no.2 thereby prohibiting and taking any coercive steps against the complainant for the recovery of the loan amount till the disposal of the present complaint.

ii) Interest @ 18% p.a. may kindly be awarded on the compensation amount from the date of incident till the realisation.

iii) That the cost of claim may kindly also be awarded.

iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the claimant and against the opposite party.”

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present complaint are that the complainant, M/s Madhav Enterprises, is engaged in manufacturing and selling corrugated boxes, with its factory and godown at IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, and an office in New Delhi. The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from Opposite Party No.2 (the Bank of India) against hypothecation of stock, after the stock was verified. As a condition of the loan, the bank got the stock insured with Opposite Party No.1 (National Insurance Company Ltd.) under the policy No.354502/11/12/310000000210, and the insurance premium Rs.13,787/- was paid from the complainant’s account.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the goods were insured under a valid policy. On 24.02.2013, a fire broke out in the godown at around 3:00 A.M., destroying raw material, finished stock, building, and furniture worth Rs.48,97,562/-. The incident was immediately reported to the police and fire department, and official reports were prepared. The complainant lodged an insurance claim with Opposite Party No. 1 and submitted all relevant documents, including stock statements, bank records, purchase bills, VAT returns, and transporter invoices. A surveyor was appointed, who raised several queries. The complainant replied to all queries in detail and cooperated fully, explaining the purchases, suppliers, manufacturing process, and extent of loss.

4. Despite full cooperation, the insurance claim was delayed for a long period. The complainant repeatedly followed up with the surveyor and the insurance company, but no decision was taken for more than two years. The complainant alleges that the surv