STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/RBT/CC/18/594 Mrs. Sangeeta Balbeer Agarwal Age: 39; Occupation: Business;

Proprietor of M/s. Sawan Commnications Office: 67/2 B, Sushila Apartments, Karve Road, Nal Stop, Pune – 411 004. …… Complainant Versus The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Through the Managing Director Name : Not known Age: Adult A company registered under The Companies Act, 1956.

Registered & Head Office:

87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ..... Opposite Party BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant: Advocate Mahesh Sahastrabuddhe For Opposite Party : Advocate S.N. Bhalerao

JUDGMENT

(Date: 12-12-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member

1. This complaint is remanded back by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by order dated 07-05- 2018 to decide the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity to the Complainant to either file an affidavit of partner/ proprietor of the Nayan Communications or to produce him as a witness before the State Commission, alongwith bill No.428 of 25-06-2009 to prove the Purchases alleged to have been made by her. The Opponent would have an opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witness. Brief Facts of the Complaint are narrated below: 2. The consumer complaint has been filed by Mrs. Sangeeta Balbeer Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Sawan Communications, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in settling the insurance claim arising out of a fire incident dated 07.11.2010 at the insured business premises.

3. The case of Complainant in short is that the complainant, was carrying on business of mobile handsets, SIM cards and accessories etc for earning her livelihood by way of self empoloyment and the stock was duly insured under Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bearing no. 153400/48/10/34/00000049, valid from 24.04.2010 to 23.04.2011 for a sum insured of Rs.28,00,000/-. On 07.11.2010, a major accidental fire broke out in the insured premises, causing extensive destruction of stocked mobile phones and accessories. The Fire Brigade managed to Put out the fire .Police Pancnama was drawn on 8/11/2010 .The Complainant had immediately informed about the accident to the Opponent and the Complainant duly submitted the insurance claim for Rs.24,55,395/-, along with copies of invoices, books of accounts, claim form, Police Panchanama, Fire Brigade report, stock statements, and supporting supplier confirmations.

4. The Opposite Party, despite admitting the occurrence of fire and insurance coverage, did not settle the claim and relied solely upon a survey report assessing the loss at Rs.2,39,787/-, without considering the entirety of documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant. It is averred that the Opposite Party arbitrarily under-assessed the claim, withheld the spot survey report and original stock assessment, and failed to consider supporting documentary evidence. The Complainant alleges that such conduct amounts to deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainant had filed the consumer complaint against opponent with a prayer that Opponent be directed to Pay amount of Rs.24,55,395/- and interest on the said amount @18% pa from 07/01/2011 till realisation. Complainant also claimed Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation along with cost.

5. The Complaint was admitted. The notice was issued to the opponent for filing their written version. The Opponent appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version denying all allegations of deficiency in service. The Opponent admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in favour of the Complainant and occurrence of a fire incident at the insured premises during the continuance of the policy. However, the Opposite Party disputed the quantum of loss claimed by the Complainant.The opponent had c