Decided on March 13,2020

Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt Ltd Appellant


Prem Narain,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 29.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No. RBT/CC/13/82.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2005 the appellant-company had taken insurance cover and the factory premises, plant and machinery, stocks lying at Wada factory were insured with the opponent under Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy bearing No. 140600/11/05/00000889.The sum assured was Rs.75 Lakhs.Under the said policy, the risk covered was for Rs. 5 Lakhs towards building, Rs.10 Lakhs towards plant and machinery and other stocks, Rs.60 Lakhs including medicines, raw material located at factory at Wada District Thane.Due to heavy rains in the area, the complainant's factory got badly affected and the stocks stored in the basement godown were submerged in the flood water and the damage caused by the flood was immediately reported to the insurance company on 27.7.2005.On 31.07.2005 the insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the complainant's property including the plant, machinery etc. The surveyor visited the site on 10.08.2005.Surveyor assessed the loss and recommended the amount of Rs.40,89,416/- and submitted his report on 16.08.2006. Thereafter, respondent/opposite party appointed an investigator who recommended the insurance company to repudiate the claim on the ground that the bills supplied by the complainant's supplier were fictitious and submitted his report dated 23.01.2008.On 16.04.2008 appellant/complainant received the repudiation letter wherein it was mentioned that the stocks purchased from M/s. Yogini Products and Yogini Ayur Pharma were never brought to India and stocks claimed to have been purchased from Nepal company were not in existence, therefore, invoice produced could not be said to be genuine invoice and the company had made an attempt to obtain undue benefits under the policy and it invited invocation of Condition No. 8 of the said policy.On 02.07.2009 appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission and the same was dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 19.06.2012 on the ground of limitation and copy of same was received by the appellant on 30.07.2012.Thereafter, appellant filed an appeal bearing no. 538/2012 before this Commission and vide order dated 28.02.2013 this Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission to decide the same on merits.The State Commission decided the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant on merits and dismissed the same vide order dated 29.10.2015.Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.