UNITED INDIA INSURNACE CO. LTD Vs. VISHESH CREATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assailing the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'State Commission') in order dtd. 17/3/2022 in complaint no. 53 of 2019 .

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellant, are that respondent firm who is in the business of embroidery of fabric and dress material had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (in short, the 'Policy') from the appellant for the period 21/11/2017 to 20/11/2018 in respect of the building for Rs.70,00,000.00, machinery for Rs.1,50,000.00 and stock-in-trade for Rs.65,00,000.00. It is averred that due to a fire on 30/6/2018 in the building, the Schiffli Embroidery Machine Model EPOCA-5 was extensively damaged. On discovering the fire, an employee, Subhash Chand, extinguished the fire with fire extinguishers within 30-40 minutes. There was no reason, therefore, to summon the fire brigade but a report was lodged with the police station and the appellant was informed the same day. The police lodged DDR No.030 on 3/7/2018. The appellant appointed J.S. Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the insured premises on 30/6/2018 and 2/7/2018 and prepared a preliminary report dtd. 10/7/2018. The appellant appointed Supreme Testing Lab and Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Pvt., to prepare a forensic report. The site was inspected again by one Purushottam Sharma and Mrs. Mahua Chakraborty on 13/7/2018 who submitted a final report on 6/8/2018 stating that the fire was due to short circuit in the internal circuits of the machine and that the fire had originated within the machine. The appellant thereafter appointed Rajan Sharda, a Chartered Accountant as surveyor to assess the loss. He visited the location on 9/7/2018 and reported that as per forensic report, the origin of the fire lay within the machine which is excluded as per clause 7 of the Policy. He, therefore, did not recommend any liability. Based on the report of the surveyor, S Rajan Sharda, the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on 15/10/2018.

(3.) After some correspondence, the respondent filed a consumer complaint no. 53 of 2019 in the State Commission, Chandigarh claiming compensation with interest. The State Commission, vide order dtd. 17/3/2022, allowed the complaint and awarded the respondent a sum of Rs.23,94,989.00 after deducting Rs.10,000.00 and 5% under the excess clause from the sum of Rs.25,31,041.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of repudiation of claim till realization along with Rs.35,000.00 as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order has been impugned by way of this First Appeal. An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act read with sec. 51 (1) Proviso (i) of the Act to condone the delay of 116 days in the filing of this appeal has also been filed. The ground for seeking condonation is stated to be consultation between the counsels and preparation of documents. The appellant is before this Commission with the following prayer: