ORDER

1.      This consumer complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in repudiation of a claim under a valid Standard Fire And Special Perils Policy (in short, the ‘Policy’) held by the complainant with the opposite party in respect to its factory at Rewari, Haryana. 

2.      The facts, according to the complainant, are that it is a registered company since 1967 which established a factory in 2012 for the manufacture of malt and malt extract for the brewing, distilling, confectionary, pharmaceutical and malted food industries. It took insurance cover from the opposite party through two Policies including the said Policy on 01.02.2014, viz., Policy no. 351600/11/13/3400000204 for Rs 1,19,76,00,000/- and Policy no.  351600/11/13/3400000199 for Rs 66,40,00,000/- from 01.02.2014 to 31.01.2015. These policies are stated to have been in force since 1967. On account of issues over discharge of waste water from the plant in the lands of local farmers, there was an issue on 10.05.2014 when local villagers entered the factory and disrupted production by preventing staff from entering or leaving the plant, disconnecting power supply by snapping the electric cables. The local police from Dharuhera Police Station and the District Administration were informed but on 13.05.2014 the local villagers again forced the shut-down of the plant and Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) around 7.30 pm. Despite the presence of the police, the agitation prevented the operations of the plant and as a result the grain which was in wet condition began to rot and deteriorate. On 14.05.2014, due to intervention of the authorities, the plant was allowed to resume for 48 hours to prevent rotting of raw material although the ETP was not permitted. As the complainant was unable to run the plant, the factory was shut down completely on 16.05.2014. A claim under the Policy for Rs 85,85,056/- along with cost for restarting the ETP was preferred. The opposite party appointed M/s Cunningham Lindsey International, Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors to assess the loss. The Surveyors visited the plant on 15.05.2014 and in their report dated 18.05.2014 held that the claim under the policy did not lie since the Policy was triggered by loss that was not direct and in the present case was consequential to the acts of omission of the agitators.  The complainant also sought approval for the disposal of salvage and the Surveyor expressed inability to comment on the issue as the liability of insurer was not established. The Surveyor’s Final Report dated 19.12.2014 was submitted to the opposite party based on which the opposite party repudiated the claim on 24.11.2015 under Clause V. A consumer complaint (No. 170 of 2015) filed by the complainant before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula was dismissed on 22.03.2017 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant is before this Commission with the prayer to direct the opposite party to:

(i)     to allow the claim of Rs 82,85,056/- with interest @ 12% from the date of claim (14.05.2014) till the filing of the complaint, i.e. Rs 1,20,54, 751/- with future interest @ 12% until realization;

(ii)    pay Rs 10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience on account of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice;

(iii)    pay costs relating to the complaint; and

(iv)   any other reliefs deemed fit.

3.      Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the opposite party by way of a reply. Averments of the complainant were denied. It was averred that the complainant was a manufacturer of malt having one of its production unit at village Khaliawas, Rewari. The complainant purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy which was valid from 01.02.2014 to 31.01.2015 covering risk of plant and machinery, furniture, fixture and fittings and stocks in process. The opposit