IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 07.08.2019 Date of Hearing: 19.11.2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 COMPLAINT NO. 738/2019 IN THE MATTER OF MR. ROHTAS SAINI C/O. F-999, 2^ND PUSTA, NEW USMAN PUR, DELHI-110053.

(Through: R.S. Dakha, Navpreet Mannan & Sunny Jain & Meena, Advocates)

…Complainant VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANACE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS CMD, DIVISION OFFICE :-

K-37, CHOUDHARY BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI–110001.

HEAD OFFICE :-

ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27.

ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002.

(Through: Rajiv Jaiswal, Advocate)

…Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the Complainant Mr. Rajiv Jaiswal, Counsel for the Opposite Party.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed for the following relief :-

a) Direct the Opposite Party to pay the claim amount of Rs.

51,00,000/- with 24% p.a. interest to complainant from

27.08.20218 till its realization b) Directed the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.

10,00,000/- as compensation to complainant on account of harassment and mental agony c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- as litigation and miscellaneous expenses d) Pass such other order(s), which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that on

14.04.2015, the Complainant purchased a Hyundai Hydraulic Excavator R215LC-7. The Complainant insured the said hydraulic excavator with the Opposite Party vide Policy No. 272300/44/2018/16 for the period from 22.03.2018 to 21.03.2019. Thereafter, on 26.08.2019, the said excavator was engaged with KBM Construction and after completion of the work at the site, while the hydraulic excavator was moving towards the truck for loading, it suddenly fell into a valley as the road edge broke down due to the narrowness of the road.

3. Furthermore, the Complainant duly intimated the Opposite Party about the incident on 27.08.2018. Subsequently, the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor, who conducted the spot survey on 28.08.2018 and submitted his report on 22.09.2019.

4. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a claim of Rs.51,00,000/-. However, the Opposite Party arbitrarily and without any reasonable cause rejected the said claim. The Complainant also issued a legal notice dated 07.06.2019 to the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party neither replied to the said notice nor paid the claim amount. Thus, left with no other option, the Complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

5. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of cause of action against the Opposite Party as the alleged loss is not covered under the policy in question. He further submitted that the alleged loss was sustained during transit after completion of work by the hydraulic excavator, which has also been admitted by the Complainant in the present complaint. He also submitted that the Opposite Party duly appointed a Surveyor namely Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta and the Surveyor, vide surveyor report, duly recommended the claim of the Complainant as „No Claim‟ in terms of the conditions of the policy.

6. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Surveyor‟s report is based on the statement of Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh, who was the operator of the machine in question and who categorically stated that the machine was 500 meters away from the site and was heading to Delhi after completion of the contractual