STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 05.05.2024 Reserved on : 23.12.2025 Date of Decision : 09.01.2026

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO

18-19, 3^rd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana-141003 through its Regional Manager.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, E-8, EPIP, RICCO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302202 through its Managing Director. Both through their Authorized Signatory Amit Vyas, Legal Manager, available at SCO No. 178, Sector 38-

C, Chandigarh.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus M/s Sandhu Forgings, Behind Aarti Steel Limited, Opposite Kanin India, Focal Point, Ludhiana through its Partner Pritpal Singh Sandhu .…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar in RBT/C.C. No. 405 of 2018.

Quorum:-

Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Presiding Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER :

The Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, have filed the present Appeal through its Regional Manager to challenge the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-M/s Sandhu Forgings had been partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant was running the business under the name and style of M/s Sandhu Forgings. The said unit was manufacturing Engineering Goods. The business was being run for the purpose of earning his livelihood. He had purchased the Friction Hammer Machinery on 09.03.2015 from Charika Industries on paying consideration amount of Rs.38,17,800/-. He had got the machinery insured by purchasing Business Protector Policy No. 105029/48/17/000141 on 16.11.2016. A premium for an amount of Rs.36,900/- was paid. The OPs under the said policy, insured the machinery to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, wherein risks relating to fire, burglary, house breaking and machinery breakdown had been covered.

4. On 28.03.2017, some problem had occurred in the functioning of the machinery. He had called the Engineer from Charika Industries-the supplier of the machinery. Said Engineer after inspection had informed that Anvil and Tup of the machinery had broken and needs replacement. The Complainant had lodged the claim with the OPs. OPs had appointed Surveyor, who had visited the spot. He had asked for AMC report of the Machine depicting the cause of loss. Quotation of replacement of parts had been supplied to the OPs. However, vide their e-mail dated 09.06.2017, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that Tup and Anvil were not covered under Tariff Code No. 209716 of the Insurance Policy. Said fact had not been disclosed to the Complainant at the time of issuance of the policy. Rather, it was informed that the machinery was insured for risks for all kinds. Upon this, the Complainant had served the Legal Notice dated 26.12.2017.

5. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.17,25,160/- on account of breakdown of the machinery, Rs.25,000/- along with interest on account of loss suffered due to non-pr