O R D E R

Per Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member.

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/601/2018 in is filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. (The ‘C.P. Act’ for short) by the complainant against Opponent.

2. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that the present complaint aroused out of an insurance claim made by him upon the Opponent. The Complainant had availed "ERCETION ALL RISKS/STORAGE CUM ERRECTION INSURANCE POLICY" bearing no. 22210044130400000001 (Insurance Policy) from Opponent on 22.04.2013 for a period of 22.04.2013 to21.04.2014.

3. Complainant stated that, on 28.05.2013, due to high velocity storm three towers bearing no. 24/0, 23/5 and 23/4 collapsed, and this led to huge material losses to the Complainant. The claim for losses was raised upon the Opponent under Insurance Policy. However, it was declined by the Opponent through email dated 24.01.2018. Therefore, said consumer complaint is filed to claim an amount of INR 79,63,742/-.

4. Complainant stated that through letter of award dated 03.03.2009, the Complainant was awarded a contract for inland transportation & insurance, delivery of equipment/material survey, foundation, erection, stringing, testing and commissioning of tower package on the Site. In order to protect the towers on Site, the Complainant availed Insurance Policy from the Opponent on 22.04.2013, after paying a premium of INR 89.49.87/- said Policy provided a cover period from 22.04.2013 to 21.04.2014, A high velocity storm hit the Site on 28.05.2013 and damaged towers bearing no. 24/0, 23/5, 23/4. Following this, the Complainant through email dated 30.05.2013 intimated the Opponent regarding the loss suffered by it due to damage to above mentioned towers.

5. Complainant stated that, through email dated 31.05.2013, the Opponent informed him regarding appointment of Mr. Raman Roy as a Surveyor for assessment and investigation of subject claim. The Surveyor vide emails dated 03.06.2013, 16.10.2014; 21.01.2015 raised certain requirements for scrutinizing the efficacy of Subject claim. The Complainant diligently offered all the assistance sought by the Surveyor and provided for all the documents as demanded by the Surveyor through its email dated 22.07.2013, 22.06.2014, 05.11.2014 and 21.01.2015. Accordingly, the Surveyor released his final report on 24.01.2015.

6. Thereafter, the Opponent, through its email dated 20.11.2015 requisitioned the Meteorological Department's report for 28.05.2013, from the Complainant to substantiate the Subject claim. Pertinently, it is the case of Opponent that the said report was also sought from the Complainant through its earlier email dated 05.03.2015. However, the Complainant denies receiving the email dated 05.03.2015. Nonetheless, the Complainant submitted the said report to the Opponent on 06.02.2016.

7. Thereafter, through numerous emails the Complainant urged the Opponent to settle the Subject claim. The Opponent never responded to the emails of the Complainant until on 24.01.2018, where the Opponent stated to have rejected Complainant's Subject claim through its earlier letter dated 26.06.2015. The Complainant denies the receipt of Opponent rejection letter dated 26.06.2015.

8. Therefore, in view of the arbitrary process adopted by the Opponent to deny the bona fide claims of the Complainant, the Complaint filed the instant complaint before this commission to recover the Subject claim of INR79,63,742/-.

9. I t is the case of Opponent that instant complaint is barred by the limitation period of two years, as stipulated in Section 24A of the Act. The Opponent in his defence on the assertion that rejected the Subject claim through its letter dated 26.06.2015. However, the rejection of the said claim was formally communicated to the Complaint for the first time by the Opponent on 24.01.2018. Through the said email dated 24.01.2018, the Opposite Party for the first time formally served its pre-dated letter dated 26.06.2015 upon the Compl