ORDER

1.      This consumer complaint under section 21(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) alleges deficiency in service in delay in repudiation of a claim under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (in short, the ‘Policy’) issued by the opposite party and seeks settlement of the claim preferred with compensation and other costs.

2.      The facts, according to the complainant, are that it is engaged in the manufacture of mosquito repellants called “Allout Mosquito Coils” at its factory located in Kathua which was covered under the said Policy (No. 2216001115P104918835) which was valid from 18.07.2015 to 17.07.2016. The Policy covered Buildings for Rs 2,36,57,000/-, Plant & Machinery for Rs 2,50,54,000/-. Furniture, fixtures and fittings (FFF) for Rs 1,00,000/-, Office Equipment for Rs 3,12,000/-, Computers for Rs 1,00,000/- and Stocks for Rs 1,40,00,000/- and was subject to (a) Reinstatement Value and (b) Designation of Policy clauses. On 07.11.2015 a fire broke out in the factory around 3 am as a consequence of which the stocks, raw material, building, plant and machinery were extensively burnt/damaged. The cause of the fire was ascertained to be a short circuit in the electrical panel of dryer from where the sparks led to a fire in the heat exchanger of the tunnel dryer and spread to the packed material and finished goods near it. Efforts were made to control the fire and the fire brigade and police were informed. Fire tenders from Kathua, Samba, Hira Nagar and Pathankot were deployed but due to the heat generated one side of the building collapsed followed by the other side. The fire was controlled in less than 24 hours. The cause of the fire according to the Fire Brigade and the Police vide letters dated 10.12.2015 was electrical short circuit.

3.      Opposite party deputed M/s Unik Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai on 10.11.2015 who sought various documents on 14.11.2015 and thereafter on 20.11.2015 for a structural engineer’s report to assess why the building collapsed during the fire.  The complainant approached the Testing & Consultancy Cell of Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, a Government aided institution who after inspection on 02.12.2015 furnished a report that the structural design conformed to the relevant Indian Codes, the tested values met the code specifications for reinforcement steel for Grade Fe 415 (IS 1786:2008) and in the basis of structural designs/drawings, observations, on-site tests and Lab Tests it could be concluded that the capacity of structural material (concrete and reinforcement steel) was badly affected due to extreme heat on account of fire which led to the collapse of the structure. Complainant requested the Surveyor on 01.12.2015 and the opposite party on 16.12.2015 to approve removal of debris to recommence restoration. Change of surveyors was also requested as there was lack of cooperation from them.

4.      On 22.12.2015 the surveyor informed about appointment of a Structural Engineer for an expert opinion who took samples from the site on 01.01.2016, with identical samples handed over to the complainant. Tests were conducted at Shraddha Analytical Services, Mumbai who detected smell of kerosene in one sample as per Ash Sample Analysis report no 02976416 dated 23.02.2016. No copy of the test report was shared with the complainant; however, based on the independent surveyor’s report dated 02.07.2016, that the presence of hydrocarbon and smell of kerosene in the sample indicated that the building might have been deliberately set on fire and that the building collapsed due to non-compliance with necessary IS building codes. It was also held that the building suffered damage due to an earthquake in the region on 26.10.2015 which was not a covered risk.

5.      According to the complainant, all necessary papers had been provided to the surveyors on 17.03.2016 and the matter raised with the opposite party on 04.04.2016 regarding