Date of filing : 28.04.2016.

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT C.C.No.34 of 2017 Tuesday, the 30^th day of September,2025 M/s. Cavin Kare Pvt. Ltd., A Private Limited Company, Rep. by its Senior Legal Executive Mr.R.Thazhalan, Having its registered office at ‘Cavin Ville’ 12, Cenotaph Road, Chennai – 600 018. ... Complainant - Vs –

1. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its authorized officer, Having its Registered Office, 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071.

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Having its Regional Office at Chennai And rep. by its authorized signatory, National Insurance Company Limited, 190, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. ... Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.R.Sivaraman Counsel for the Opposite parties: M/s.P.Sankaranarayanan This complaint came up for final hearing on

22.08.2025 and on hearing the counsel for the opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This complaint has been filed under Sections 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for the following directions:-

(a) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.67,13,717/-

being the actual payments finalized by the Surveyor on his report dated 15.05.2013;

(b) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment, frustration and mental agony suffered by the complainant;

(c) To pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is an Indian Conglomerate Company headquartered at Chennai. It is a FMCG company with operation all over India with depots across all locations/

states. The complainant had opted for an insurance policy issued by the IFFCO in 2005 to cover the depot finished goods and transit up to 90 days and for goods stored above 90 days cover on basis of premium. The requirement of the policy is only the declaration of cost of goods sold based on sales at the end of the month on consolidated basis. The policy was subsequently placed with TATA AIG and after that with National Insurance Company Limited, the 2^nd opposite party in 2007. The Marine Open Policy was taken with the 2^nd opposite party for the period from 05.07.2011 to 04.07.2012 under the policy No.500300/21/09/4400000317 for Rs.68,45,84,400/-. The policy taken by the complainant is a transit policy for movement of goods from their plant to godown and between two or more godowns. The same policy was extended by the 2nd opposite party to provide cover against fire for 90 days initially and upon payment of additional premium for another 90 days. The stocks held beyond 180 days of receipt at godown will be covered by a separate Fire Floater Policy No.500300/11/11/310000060 from 05.07.2011 to 04.07.2012 for the amount of Rs.1.78 Crores. They hold separate policies issued by the 2^nd opposite party which covers storage of milk at all their chilling plants under the policy Nos. 500300/11/11/330000026, 500300/11/11/3100000011 & 500300/11/11/3300000053. From the year 2007 onwards, premium for the aforesaid policies has been paid by the complainant at the right time.

(a) While so Fire Accident happened in their godown at Thaiyur Village, near Kelambakkam, Chengalpattu District, on 22.04.2012. In pursuant to this incident the complainant lodged its initial claim for a sum of Rs.3,12,63,320/- which is covered by both the Marine and Fire policies. This claim was raised on the basis of SAP records. A surveyor was appointed by the 2nd opposite party and he had issued a report on 27.12.2012 for the amount payable to the claim as Rs.2.78 Crores. But the claim was denied by the second opposite party on its letter dated 18.04.2013, stating that assessment of loss has to be made under two policies and the complainant was required to provide break up sum declared for transit which was covered by Marine policy. In pursuant to the said letter, the co