- (1.) BY way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for following reliefs. "(a) May be pleased to direct opposite party to pay Rs. 17,33,543/ - to the complainant for loss/damages suffered being cost of yarn/Stock/stock -in -process destroyed by fire and due to unfair trade practice, deficiency of service practised by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 towards complainants; (b) may be pleasesd to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay interest @ 24% p.a. with effect from 26.10.1995 till the date of payment to complainant; (c) may be pleased to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental agonies and financial hardship caused to the complainant No. 2 as also by way of exemplary as penal damages/costs in the circumstances of the case; (d) may be pleased to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/ - to complainant Nos. 1 and 2; (e) may be pleased to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 2,496/ - incurred in engaging fire fighter of ONGC; (f) may be pleased to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay loan interest payable to the Bank by complainant No. 2."
(2.) THE allegations of facts set out in the complaint may briefly be noted:
(3.) COMPLAINANT No. 1 is a consumer organisation and complainant No. 2 is the insured, for whose cause this complaint has been filed (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned offices of the opponent Oriental Insurance Company Limited and opponent No. 3 is the Bank with whom the complainant alleged to have pledged the stock, which is the subject matter of this complaint. According to the complainant, it had renewal policy of Insurance No. 14135/11/96/207 for the period from 9.6.1995 to 18.6.1996 for Rs. 17,50,000/ - covering risk of fire to its raw material, stocks, stocks -in -process and the opponent Insurance Company undertook the said risk. On 26.10.1993 at around 1.30 O clock in the midnight (early hours) there was fire in the complainant s factory at Plot No. 3208, Phase III GIDC, Chhatral and raw materials, stock and stock -in -process got burnt and heavily damaged. Fire fighters were immediately called from ONGC and FIR was lodged. According to the complainant, stock and stock -in -process lying in the premises was of the value of Rs. 22.50 lakhs and stock worth Rs. 17.32 lakhs got burnt in the fire. Complainant took loan from opponent No. 3 Bank and has been paying interest @ 20.75% p.a. plus 1.5% as guarantee fee for refinancing as the opponent Insurance Company did not honour the claim. Opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim by letter dated 6.2.1996 on the ground no claim as according to the opponent Insurance Company loss had occurred to the stock in the godown and risk of stock in the godown was not covered under any of the policies taken by the complainant. The complainant wrote letters to reconsider the matter but ultimately opponent Insurance Company by letter dated 3.7.1996 repeated repudiation of the claim on the same ground as also on the ground that the claim was fraudulent and was made on false declaration as the parties purported to have sold the goods either did not exist or never sold the goods to the complainant and actual sales were higher compared to the sale shown to the opponent Insurance Company from the register implying that the damaged stock would be lower than the stock claimed by the complainant and the complainant failed to satisfactorily explain the irregularities in the balance sheet of 1993 -94. According to the complainant, the reasons given by the opponent Insurance Company relate to raw material, stock and stock -in -process of period other than October 1995 and repudiation was made with a view to pressurise the complainant to accept lower amount than the legitimate amount claimed by the complainant. According to the complainant, the survey report of Kirj Consultants and also of Mehta and Padamsey Surveyors (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. are not correct and acceptable to the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant, opponent Insurance Company has displayed both unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service in honouring the complainant s claim for which aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for in this complaint. Opponent Insurance Company has filed affidavit in reply Exh. 9. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, it has asserted that the allegations made in the complaint bring out highly complicated questions of facts and law which can be decided only by a competent Civil Court, that as per condition No. 8 of the policy of insurance in question if there is any fraudulent claim or there is any false declaration made in support of any claim, the claim cannot be considered and cannot be allowed, that repudiation of the claim has been made on the strength of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent Insurance Company. According to the opponent Insurance Company, the stock and items of machinery stored in the godown were not covered under any of the policies of insurance in question. Admittedly, fire broke out in the yarn godown and not in the factory premises which had been referred to in the policy of insurance in question. According to the opponent Insurance Company, the premises of weaving works and textile weaving works is different from yarn godown. Yet, the Surveyor M/s. Kirj Consultants, Chartered Engineers, Surveyor and Loss Assessors, Registered Valuers and Energy Auditors were appointed to carry out the survey of the incident. They submitted their report dated 1.2.1996 opining that the claim made by the complainant was not correct and complainant was not entitled to any amount either for the claim under the head of machinery or under the head of goods. By letter dated 6.2.1996 the claim of the complainant with respect to the policy Annexure -A to the complaint came to be repudiated. The complainant was not satisfied with the said survey report and, therefore, letter dated 10.2.1996 came to be addressed by the complainant to the opponent Insurance Company for reconsideration of the claim. In pursuance of the said request of reconsideration Surveyors Mehta Padamsey Surveyors (Bombay) Private Limited were appointed to give fresh survey report. The 2nd Surveyor carried out the survey and have considered various items and physical verification of the accounts submitted by the complainant and after visiting the site and making detailed inquiry with the alleged suppliers of goods, the said Surveyor found that the sales, purchase and stock records were not matching with each other and the stock register did not show entries of actual sales bills, that the purchase register showed certain entries from Unnati Sales Corporation who informed the Surveyor that no goods were sold by them to the complainant, that they were in fact dealing in dyes and chemicals and had no occasion to deal with any yarn or in any event to deal with the complainant, that no such company as Biral Trading Company from whom purchases were made was not found at the address mentioned, that said Biral Trading Company was stated to have dealt with the complainant in cotton yarn only whereas the alleged transaction during the period in question was with regard to blended yarn, that certain documents required by the 2nd Surveyor were not produced, that actual purchases of yarn were much lower than what were shown in the purchase register and the actual sales were higher than what was shown in the sales register and that the complainant, by fraudulent means misprojected inflated value and the quality of the goods. Thus, the said 2nd Surveyor concluded that loss, if any, could be assessed to maximum extent of Rs. 3,40,104.20 including Rs. 784.90 and Rs. 392.46 for furniture and the balance amount for goods. Rest of the allegations of facts made in the complaint have been denied. Opponent Insurance Company has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.;