NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. NANDEETAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed against the order dtd. 28/7/2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 122/2013.

(2.) The Complainant/Respondent is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of export of exclusive hand embroidered and beaded garments, bags, belts, stolls, home furnishings etc. since the year 2000. The manufacturing activity is carried out in the factory premises at Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana. The Complainant had taken Policy No.31010011110100000277 valid from 26/8/2011 to 25/8/2012 from the Opposite Party. As per Clause VI of the Policy, the Complainant firm was insured against Storm, Cyclone, Thyphoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and inundation resulting in any material damage to the factory building. The total sum insured under the Policy was Rs.2,07,10,000.00. According to the Complainant, on the intervening night of 5th and 6/5/2012 a storm/tempest lashed the town of Manesar causing severe damages in the Complainant factory. The force of the storm also damaged the central dome installed in the factory premises. There was also damage to the expensive polycarbonate sheets and the hydraulic system attached to the central eclipse. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party, vide email dtd. 7/5/2012. On 11/5/2012, another storm hit the town of Manesar causing further damage to the Complainant's factory premises.

(3.) The Complainant, vide email dtd. 12/5/2012, again informed the Opposite Party about the storm and the loss caused. Complainant received letter dtd. 14/5/2012 from M/s S. Soni and Company, Surveyors and Loss Assessors requiring the Complainant to produce certain documents relating the loss caused. The Complainant had taken the quotations for repair from M/s Fabcons for an amount of Rs.26,66,939.25. On 28/6/2012, the Complainant received an email from the Surveyor stating that the dome was not covered under the Policy and certain queries were also made. The Complainant addressed those queries and submitted proof of payment for construction of the dome. The Opposite Party, however, did not settle the claim. The Opposite Party also insisted for a report from the Metrological Department regarding the storm. The Complainant obtained report dtd. 9/8/2012 from the Metrological Department disclosing that on 5/5/2012 the wind speed was 54 kmph with no rain or weather phenomenon occurring. In spite of furnishing all relevant documents, including the report from the Metrological Department, the Opposite Party, vide letter dtd. 27/8/2012 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Aggrieved by repudiation of the Insurance Claim, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint with the State Commission with following prayer: -