STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 22.02.2018 Date of Final Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 SC/5/CC/08/2018 M/s Nissar Tyre Services Through Proprietor Mr. Nissar Ahmed S/o Noor Hassan With Proprietorship firm situated at ‘M/s Nissar Tyre Services’

Pathanpura near Idgah Roorkee comprising out of Khasra No. 1383/1 Min Mohalla Pathanpura near Idgah Roorkee (Through: Sh. S.K. Dhiman & Sh. Chetan Jain, Advocates)

…..Complainant VERSUS

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager

90 Purva Vali, Ganeshpur, Dehradun Road, Roorkee District Haridwar (Through: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate)

…..Opposite Party No. 1

2. Canara Bank (formerly known as Syndicate Bank)

Through its Branch Manager Roorkee Branch, Roorkee, District Haridwar (Through: Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate)

…..Opposite Party No. 2 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This complaint has been filed on behalf of the complainant seeking relief, i.e. to declare the repudiation order dated 01.09.2017 to be wrong and illegal; to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 53,87,561/- as the losses sustained to the complainant due to fire; to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs towards harassment, mental agony, loss of business. The opposite parties also be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum, Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation & Rs. 4,000/- towards the amount tendered through bank draft for filing the complaint case and any other relief from the opposite parties.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such that the complainant is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of old tyres and tyre retreading. The complainant had availed credit facility from the opposite party No. 2 – Bank for which the property of complainant’s wife situated at Khasra No. 1383/1 Min Mohalla Pathanpura near Idgah Roorkee, Haridwar (new Municipal No. 119/1) was mortgaged as security. To further secure the said credit facility, the opposite party No. 2 obtained an insurance policy ‘Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy’ bearing No. 2502031116P110873142 valid from 11.11.2016 to 10.11.2017 from the United India Insurance Company Ltd. – opposite party No. 1 covering the building for Rs. 60 Lakhs and stocks for Rs. 40 Lakhs with add-on risk of Earthquake and STFI. On dated 14.12.2016, a fire broke out in the complainant’s business place allegedly causing damage to the building and stocks. The loss was intimated to the insurance company and claim of Rs. 53,87,561/- was lodged with the insurance company. However, the opposite party No. 1 – Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.09.2017 on the ground that the fire occurred at 119 Mohalla Pathanpura, Roorkee, whereas the insurance policy covered the property situated at 191 Mohalla Pathanpura, Roorkee. The complainant contended that he was carrying on his business from the premises bearing No. 119/1 (Khasra No. 1383/1 Min Mohalla Pathanpura, Roorkee) and that the discrepancy in the address was not attributable to the complainant. It was asserted that the address mentioned in the insurance policy, was provided by the opposite party No. 2 – Bank, which according to the complainant, had knowledge since inception that the complainant was conducting his business from 119/1 Mohalla Pathanpura, Roorkee. The complainant further contended that the repudiation of the claim on the ground of address mismatch is arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Despite repeated follow-ups, the opposite parties refused to indemnify the loss of the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission.

3. The opposite party No. 1 – Insurance Company has filed written statement (paper Nos. 94 to 102) denied its liability and asserted that the insured premises under the insurance policy was 191 Mohalla Pat