The brief facts of the case as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant is a partnership firm manufacturing Calcium Sennosides prepared from Senna Leaves mixed with Methanol, ammonia etc.  This medicine is used for digestive problem and is prepared with the concentration of 20% or 35% or 45% or 60%.  The unit of the Complainant is situated at Plot No. 1-2 & 10, Phase IV, Bakhra Road, Gwalehi, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh).  The Complainant had taken from Punjab National Bank on 30.03.2010 a loan of Rs.2.65 crore and also Cash Credit facility worth Rs.1.85 Crore and pledged its stock as a security.  The Bank was to mandatorily check the stock on monthly basis.

1.      The admitted case of the parties is that on 01.06.2011, the Complainant had obtained an insurance policy from the Opposite Party (hereinafter be referred as “the Insurance Company”) which was valid till 31.05.2012 for an amount of Rs.16,50,00,000/- which includes building plant, machinery. Fittings, fixtures and stocks.   During the validity of the insurance policy, on the night of 15/16.04.2021 a fire broke out in the premises of the Complainant.  A fire brigade was called.  Police report was also lodged.  The photographs were also taken and the Insurance Company was informed through E-mail dated 16.4.2012.  On 29.4.2012, the Complainant submitted a claim with the Insurance Company claiming loss of Rs.3.30 Crore.  A surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who visited the place of incident on 19/20.04.2012.  Since no decision was taken on its claim by the Insurance Company a legal notice was sent on 10.10.2012.   Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint No.305 of 2012 on 07.03.2013 and a notice was issued by this Commission to the Insurance Company for 21.10.2013.  On 29.07.2013, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant.  On 21.10.2013, the Complainant withdrew its earlier Complaint No.305 of 2012 with permission to file a fresh Complaint challenging the repudiation letter.  This Commission allowed the Complainant to withdraw the said Complaint with wand the permission to file the fresh Complaint was also granted.  Subsequently, the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant.

2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the claim which was repudiated during the pendency of the earlier Complaint has been done on flimsy grounds.  It is submitted that the Complainant has supplied all the documents as asked for by the surveyor and despite that the surveyor failed to submit its report within time.  It is submitted that the surveyor had been harassing the Complainant by asking for the same documents again and again.  Along with the claim filed on 29.04.2012, all the supporting documents were furnished.  Even in the e-mail dated 15.06.2012, the surveyor had acknowledged the visit to the office of the Complainant.  Further a list of documents as demanded by the surveyor was also supplied on 14.08.2012.  Even the soft copy of the excel data, as per the demand of the surveyor was provided on 17.08.2012.  On 04.09.2012, the Complainant received an e-mail from the surveyor wherein he had stated that he was in difficulty in examining the documents and again demanded the documents which had already been supplied to him.  It is further contended that on 25.10.2012, the PNB had recalled the loan due to the distress and the lack of funds the Complainant was facing.  Since the Insurance Company had not approved its claim, its customers cancelled the orders as the Complainant was in financial difficulties in completing the orders.  The surveyor even visited the Delhi office of the Complainant on 14.03.2013, after the Complainant had filed its Complaint No.305 of 2012 on 07.03.2013.  All queries of the surveyor were addressed and further records were provided and this meeting was also attended by the officials of PNB.  It is submitted that all the grounds of repudiation are invalid grounds.  It is submitted that one of the grounds of repudiation is that the Complainant had obtained 55% of the raw material from M/s Agro Herbs Indo which is a sister concern of the Complainant.  It is submitted that simply because M/s Agro Herbs Indo is a sister concern of the Complainant, no presumption can be raised that the material was never provided to the Complainant.  It is submitted that from 01.04.2011 to 18.07.2013, the supplies from M/s Agro Herbs Indo were of Rs.41,22,797/- whereas supplies from other farmers were much more, i.e. Rs.1,63,16,736/-.   All supplies made by M/s Agro Herbs Indo was supported by bills, transport receipts, form 26 under Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and these documents can sufficiently show that the supplies were actually made by M/s Agro Herbs Indo and therefore, the repudiation on this ground is not sustainable.    It is further contended that the repudiation is also done on the ground that the Complainant had produced CS-60% concentration in large quantity only in last two months prior to the date of incident while there were no commensurate purchase orders.  It is submitted that the Complainant has been producing large quantity of CS 60% and that the documents clearly show that in the month of November 2011 2850 kgs, in December 2011 3240 kgs, in January 2012 3120 kgs, In February 2012 3060 kgs and in March 2012 5140 kgs of CS 60% was produced by the Complainant.  It is further submitted that generally the Complainant manufactures CS 60% because the same can be diluted to lower concentration as per the requirement and it is for this reason that the stock is maintained in high concentration of CS 60%.  It is further contended that as per the terms of the loan given by the PNB, the entire stock was hypothecated with it and the PNB was doing monthly inspection of the stocks and the test reports of the PNB are the proof to show that the stock of CS 60% had exceeded as mentioned during this period.  It is further submitted that another ground for repudiation is that in six months after the fire incident, they had not produced CS 60% and hence the claim of the Complainant for production of higher quantity of CS 60% which was exported had been rejected.  It is submitted that there was no production in subsequent months to the fire incident because the available orders were cancelled since the production could not be started post fire incident due to financial crunch.  It is submitted that despite financial crunch, the Complainant had been able to carry out the export and for that it had relied upon the customer receipts, tax receipts etc.  It is submitted that this export had been carried out in Ukrain and the repudiation had been done on the incorrect presumption which is contrary to the record.  It is further contended that the repudiation on the assumption that the concentration of CS was not 60% after the fire, relying on the testing of the samples collected after the incident, is incorrect.  It is submitted that the CS 60% is a water soluble product and to extinguish the fire, the fire brigade had used water cannons which got mixed with CS 60% and diluted the same to the lower concentration.  It is submitted that even after the dilution the concentration quality is of 20% and therefore the concentration of CS was of higher concentration before fire.  On these contentions, it is submitted the repudiation letter should be rejected and the Complainant be awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,21,189/-; Rs.5 Lakhs towards cost of litigation and the interest @ 19% p.a. with monthly rest from the date of claim till the payment and Rs.1 Crore towards the delay in settling the claim should be awarded to the Complainant.

3.      The Complaint is contested by the Insurance Company.  It is submitted that the Complainant has concealed the material facts.  A legal objection that the Complainant had not filed the registered partnership deed, hence the Complaint was liable to be dismissed, was also raised.  It is submitted that after the incident of fire was reported to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company appointed M/s Rank Surveyors Private Limited having IRDA license to investigate the loss and damages and to assess the loss. The surveyor visited the premises and carried out extensive physical inspection of the loss on 19.04.2012 to 20.04.2012.  The surveyor also sought documents from the Complainant in order to authenticate and establish the correctness of the available stock at the time of occurrence.  The surveyor sent e-mail dated 24.04.2012 for collecting the damaged samples in three sets from the salvage and debris but the Complainant did not comply and remained silent for two months.  The surveyor visited the office of the Complainant from 05.06.2012 to 07.06.2012 but the Complainant did not cooperate and the mandatory claimed documents were not provided.  Even the documents were deficient in cross matching the availability of the stock before the fire.  Finding no cooperation from the Complainant, the surveyor submitted its report dated 01.06.2013 on the basis of the data and information collected by him on his own efforts and without cooperation by the Complainant and in the absence of requisite papers, documents and information.  The surveyor on the basis of his inspection found that the Complainant had purchased 55% of the stock of total raw material from his sister concern M/s Agro Herbs Indo and that CS 60% was produced worth more than Rs.1 Crore in just two preceding months prior to the date of fire and the Complainant did not have used any backup orders of buyers for such CS60%.  The Complainant had informed the surveyor that it had produced the high quantity of CS 60% to export but on examination of ERP for the current financial year 2012-2013 upto 30^th September 2012, there had been no purchase order of CS 60% in the next six months subsequent to date of loss and there was no single order from foreign buyers during the period of subsequent six months from the date of the alleged loss except one for purchase of 5 kg of CS 60%.  It is further contended that the surveyor had also observed certain discrepancies.  It found that the samples collected after the fire shows that the concentration of CS was 20% and not 60%.  There were dual page numbers in the raw material register.  The Complainant had generated new register after the loss occurred in the same uniform and consistent handwriting and all the six registers produced by the Complainant were found to be newly generated.  The ‘Lot Production and Batch Production’ record sheet appeared to be fresh one and this all created a belief and also established that the Complainant had created fresh evidence of stock in order to exaggerate the claim.  No proper record in regards to methanol fresh and distilled methanol was maintained and the Complainant had manipulated and produced incorrect entries of stock.  The surveyor also could find difference of the report between the profit and loss and audited account.  Three stocks journal entries on 31.08.2011 were made which did not support actual purchase.  It is further contended that although the PNB is the financer and the entire stock had been hypothecated to PNB, yet no requisite mandatory monthly declaration stock statement was produced either to the Insurance Company or to the surveyor.  The surveyor had also noted inconsistency in LPR and BPR.  It is submitted that the Complainant had violated conditions No.6 and 8 of the insurance policy since it had not extended cooperation and did not furnish the requisite claim documents and did not arrange the stock statement as well as financial statement prior to the date of fire.  It is submitted that the Complainant had fraudulently and with intention to cheat the Insurance Company has not disclosed the material and vital facts and has thus tried to play fraud upon the Insurance Company.  It is submitted that the claim had been rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company.  It is submitted that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      Parties led their evidence and filed their evidences.  The Complainant has filed the affidavit of Yatharth Vashisht, partner of the Complainant and the Insurance Company has filed the affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company.  In the affidavit, the Complainant has proved on record the repudiation letter as Ex.CW1/1; copy of partnership deed dated as Ex. CW1/2; the copy of financial reports showing profit earning for last three years as Ex. CW1/3; copy of the sanction letter of the loan from PNB dated 30.03.2010 as Ex. CW1/4 showing that the stock, the entire building, and plant, machinery had been hypothecated to the Bank against the loan facility of Rs.2.65 Crores and cash credit of Rs.1.85 Crores.  The insurance policy is exhibited as Ex.CW1/5.  The fire brigade report is exhibited as Ex. CW1/6 and the police report is exhibited as Ex. CW1/7.  The spot photographs (colly) are exhibited as Ex.CW1/8.  The notice to the Insurance Company seeking information of the fire on 16.04.2012 through e-mail and the copy of the e-mail is placed on record as Ex.CW1/9.  Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 20.04.2012 with the surveyor is exhibited as CW1/10.  The e-mail dated 24.04.2012 received from the Insurance Company is placed on record as Ex. CW1/11 asking the Complainant to clear the debris after keeping the samples.  The courier slip showing that the samples were collected and sent is exhibited as CW1/12.  The letter dated 29.04.2012 showing the statement of the claim along with all the relevant documents is proved as CW1/13.  The copy of the letter dated 15.06.2012 is exhibited as CW1/14.  The covering letter dated 14.08.2012 showing that the Complainant had supplied all the documents to the surveyor through courier is exhibited as CW1/15.  The e-mail dated 16.08.2012 to ensure that the courier had been supplied to the surveyor is exhibited as CW1/16.  The letter dated 14.08.2012 showing the supply of all the documents as required by the surveyor is proved as CW1/17.  A letter dated 04.09.2012 is proved as Ex.CW1/18.  Copy of the legal notice dated 10.10.2012 is proved as Ex. CW1/19.  Copy of the recall notice by the Bank is proved as Ex.CW1/20.  Bank certificate is proved as Ex.CW1/21.  List of previous orders is exhibited as CW1/22.  Copy of the order of this Commission dated 21.10.2013 whereby the Complainant was allowed to withdraw his earlier Complaint with permission to file a fresh Complaint challenging the repudiation letter is proved as CW1/23.  A chart showing the purchase from M/s Agro Herbs Indo and other commercial entities is exhibited as CW1/24.  Some documents showing the invoices etc. for purchase from M/s Agro Herbs Indo is exhibited as CW1/25.  Copy of the purchase orders collectively is exhibited as CW1/26.  The stock statement from PNB, Opposite Party No.4, is exhibited (colly) as CW1/27.  Copies of the purchase orders from foreign buyers is exhibited as CW1/29.    Elaborate report of M/s Interalia Private Limited relating to the samples collected was never supplied and the Complainant made a demand for the same and the letter is exhibited as CW1/30.  Subsequently with the permission of this Commission, the Complainant has filed on record along with affidavit the Registration Certificate of its partnership concern as CW1/31.

5.      The Opposite Party in its affidavit has proved on record the surveyor report dated 01.06.2013 along with its annexures, photographs and relevant data consisting of about 115 pages as Ex.RW-1 (colly) and the repudiation letters as Ex.RW-2.

6.      Parties have furnished their written synopsises.  I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.

7.      The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant is the holder of a valid insurance policy whereby the building, stock and machinery were insured with the Insurance Company.  During the existence of the policy, an accidental fire had taken place and the fire brigade was called which submitted its report.  The fire brigade had to work for about 1½ hour to extinguish the fire.  The FIR was also registered and the Insurance Company was also informed of the incident.  The surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company.  The surveyor did not submit its report and the Complaint No.305 of 2012 was filed by the Complainant on 07.03.2013.  After the notice in the said Complaint was issued, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 29.07.2013.  It is also admitted fact that the entire stock of the Complainant was hypothecated against a loan of Rs.2.65 Crore and a cash credit facility of Rs.1.85 Crore with PNB since 30.03.2010 and as per the terms of the said agreement, the PNB was doing monthly survey of the stock of the Complainant.  It is not the contention of the Insurance Company that the fire was not accidental. 

8.      The claim was repudiated on two grounds.  Firstly that the Complainant had violated the conditions no.6 (1) (b) and secondly that there is violation of condition no.8.  It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the condition no.6 (1) (B) makes it obligatory upon the insured to provide on its own  expenses, all the relevant documents, plans, specifications, books, vouchers, invoices, documents and other information which is required touching the liability or the amount of the liability and since the Complainant had failed to provide relevant documents to assist the surveyor to reach to the conclusion regarding the quantity of the stock which had burnt in the fire, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.  Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Complainant had even failed to collect the samples as directed by the Insurance Company and therefore, there has been non-cooperation on the part of the Complainant.

9.      On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the Complainant had provided all the available documents as and when asked by the surveyor.  It is also argued that the surveyor had repeatedly asked for the documents and every time the surveyor had demanded the documents, the same had been provided to the surveyor and in support of its arguments has relied on various communication, courier receipts and other documents, Ex.CW/3 to CW1/18.

10.    I have gone through the entire evidences produced by the parties in this regard.  The document Ex.C-12 clearly shows that the Complainant had sent the samples through this document to the Insurance Company on the same day on which it was asked to collect and send it.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the Complainant had failed to send the samples as directed by the Insurance Company.  It is also clear that the surveyor had visited the factory of the Complainant on 19/20.04.2012 and surveyor has recorded in its report that the calcium sennosides packed in thicky poly bag of 120 microns inside the affected block, plant and machinery, glass assembly, reactors, agitator etc. building aluminium partition, roof and floor were damaged.  He also verified on the same date the records and some documents which were furnished to him.  He also inspected the stock register.  He collected 10 numbers of samples.  The documents/soft copy were also handed over to him as per Annexure annexed with the minutes of the meeting held between the surveyor and the Complainant.  These documents include register column sanction production w.e.f. 30.01.2011 to 24.02.2012, dispatch register detail, drug licence, C.D., soft copy of tally backup in pen drive, process flow chart, certificate of analysis, master formular records, sketch of location samples, building, plant machinery valuation report.  Again on 29.04.2012, the Complainant had submitted the required documents.    These documents included the Claim Form, copy of Police Report, copy of fire brigade, plant history, copy of News Papers, copy of Occurrence Report & Damage report, Flow Chart of Production 20%, 60% (IPA, Column), cost of Production of Calcium Sennosides 20%, 60%, copy of Balance Sheets for year 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 , (Provisional), copy of factory Layout, detailed list of Plants Machinery, copy of Stock Register and copy of Production Register Pages and all these documents were collected in serial order and were sent as Annexures 5 by the Complainant to the surveyor.  The surveyor had sent an e-mail to the Complainant dated 15.06.2012 making a reference of his visit to the site from 05.06.2012 and 07.06.2012 admitting that certain documents shown as Annexure 2 were received by him.  He also asked the Complainant to provide certain other documents as listed out in the Annexure 3 in this e-mail and also asked the Complainant to keep the original documents and registers ready for his inspection on the next visit.  The documents asked for by the surveyor vide Annexure 2 along with e-mail included the certificate from State Excise and Taxation Department, certificate from the Drugs Licensing Authority, copy of GMP certificate, Explosive License, some missing pages of stock register, copy of stock and movement register, list of purchase of inputs pertaining to CS 60% etc.  The Complainant replied that it would do the needful and vide their e-mail dated 14.08.2012 supplied the documents which included the photocopy of the register etc. and also sent the files and the soft copy of excel data by mail which was duly acknowledged by the surveyor vide his e-mail.  Vide their letter dated 04.09.2012, the surveyor had acknowledged the receipt of the soft copy and hard copy of the documents but they showed their inability to understand the documents in logical sequence and asked the Complainant to keep the original documents and registers ready for verification.  All these facts clearly show that the Complainant had fully cooperated and provided whatever documents were available with it in order to help the surveyor to reach to the right conclusion regarding the quantity of the stock lost in the fire.  The Complainant has also stated on oath in his affidavit that the surveyor had visited its head office on 14.03.2013 and the Complainant had again provided to the surveyor the entire stock register and other demanded documents as per their format.   

11.    All the documents on record clearly prove that the Complainant had fully cooperated with the surveyor and provided all the documents as and when demanded. 

12.    The second ground for the repudiation of the claim is that the claim of the Complainant was fraudulent and thus it violates condition no.8 of the policy.  It is argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that the surveyor had done a thorough investigation and submitted his final report dated 01.06.2013 along with its annexures, photographs etc. and the report is running into 115 pages.  It is submitted that the surveyor had observed that the Complainant had purchased more than 55% of the total raw material from its sister concern M/s Agro Herbs Indo and this, therefore, creates a doubt as to whether this quantity was ever purchased or not.  It is further argued that the surveyor had also observed that CS 60% was reportedly produced in bulk in just two preceding months prior to the date of loss, i.e., 15/16.04.2012 but the Complainant could not produce any previous backup orders of buyers for such CS 60%.  It is further submitted that on examination of ERP for the current financial year 2012-2013 upto 30^th September 2012, there had been no purchase of CS 60% in the next six months subsequent to date of loss and that there was no single order from foreign buyers during the period of subsequent six months from the date of the alleged loss except one for purchase of 5 kg of CS 60%.  It is further argued that although the Complainant claims that it had produced a large quantity of CS 60% but the samples of salvage sent by the Complainant confirms that the product used/lost could at best be CS 20%.   The six registers produced by the Complainant were found to be newly generated.  The ‘Lot Production and Batch Production’ record sheet appeared to be fresh one and no proper record in regards to methanol fresh and distilled methanol was maintained and the Complainant had manipulated and produced incorrect entries of stock.  The surveyor had also noticed difference of the report between the profit and loss and audited account and three stocks journal entries on 31.08.2011 were made which did not support actual purchase.  The monthly declaration stock statement of PNB, the financer, was also not provided.  It is argued that the Complainant has misrepresented the loss.

13.    It is denied by learned Counsel for the Complainant that 55% supplies were made by M/s Agro Herbs Indo, its sister concern.  It is argued that during the period from 01.04.2011 to 18.07.2013, the supplies by M/s Agro Herbs Indo were of Rs.41,22,797/- whereas supplies from other farmers were much more, i.e. Rs.1,63,16,736/-.  It is submitted that the Complainant had provided all the documents in support of the supplies made by M/s Agro Herbs Indo which included the bills, transport receipts, form 26 under Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and this clearly shows that the supplies were duly made to the Complainant by M/s Agro Herbs Indo.  It is further argued that simply because the raw material has been purchased from its sister concern, it does not mean that the raw material was never supplied to the Complainant.  It is further argued that because the purchases had been made from the sister concern, the purchases are not fraudulent purchase.  It is also argued that the argument of the Insurance Company that CS 60% was produced in large quantity only in last two months prior to the date of incident is not correct observation.  It is argued that in the month of November 2011 2850 kgs, in December 2011 3240 kgs, in January 2012 3120 kgs, In February 2012 360 kgs and in March 2012 5140 of CS 60% was produced by the Complainant.  It is further argued that the production of CS 60% is made because the same can be diluted to lower concentration like 20% or 40% as per the requirement and because higher concentration can be diluted to the lower concentration but lower concentration cannot be converted into higher concentration, the CS 60% is produced mainly by the Complainant.  It is further argued that the purchase orders were also supplied to the surveyor.  It is further argued that due to the unfortunate incident of fire and loss of the stock and because there was a delay on the part of the Insurance Company in sanctioning and release of amount towards its claim, the Complainant was facing financial crunch.  Despite such financial crunch, the Complainant had exported higher concentration of CS on 01.10.2012, 28.11.2012 and 06.12.2012 and this factum was not taken into consideration by the Insurance Company.  It is also submitted that the exports were being done as is clear from the customer receipts, bank details, central sales tax receipt which documents were also made available to the surveyor.  It is further submitted that the contention of the Insurance Company that no exports had been made for six months after the date of incident is also incorrect since the documents on record which are purchase orders dated 03.07.2012, 09.12.2012 and 24.12.2012 clearly show that the export had been made to Ukrain.  It is further argued that in dousing the fire, the fire brigade had used the water cannons which diluted the concentration of CS from 60% to 20%.  It is submitted that even after the use of so much water in extinguishing the fire by the fire brigade, the samples could retain 20% of CS clearly shows that the earlier to the incident, the concentration of CS was much more and it was thus CS 60% and therefore, the assumption made by the Insurance Company is incorrect.  It is further argued that on the basis of site inspection after the fire, the surveyor had himself assessed the quantity of CS as 5133 kgs.  It is submitted that there was a meeting held between the parties which was also attended by the bank officials and the surveyor was very well aware that the entire stock was hypothecated with the Bank and the Bank was mandatorily required to do the inspection of the stock on monthly basis and the Insurance Company could have very well collected the said documents from the Bank but it is not done so.  It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the said report of the Bank has been duly proved on record by the Complainant which clearly shows that on the date of inspection, conducted on 31.03.2012, the entire stock of the Complainant was weighing CS 60% as 5140, CS 20% as 3530, CS more than 20% as 2520 and CS more than 18% is 4530.  It is submitted that this figure closely tallies with the quantity assessed by the surveyor.  It is further argued that in view of these facts, it cannot be said that the Complainant had played any fraud or misrepresented the amount of the loss it had suffered.

14.    I have given the thoughtful consideration to the counter arguments of learned Counsel on this count.  It is apparent that simply because the raw material had been purchased from its sister concern, does not amount to creation of any doubt regarding the genuineness of the purchase, unless the Insurance Company shows such document which falsifies the claim of the Complainant.  It in itself cannot be a ground to reach to a conclusion that the Complainant had played a fraud.  The Complainant, on the other hand, has placed on record the documents which are not denied, which clearly shows that material purchased from sister concern was duly delivered.  As regards the loss of stock is concerned, the surveyor had itself in its report on the basis of the site inspection assessed the quantity as 5133 kg.  The surveyor was aware that the entire stock was hypothecated against a loan with the Bank and the Bank was mandatorily doing monthly stock verification, yet it never asked the Complainant to provide the said documents.  Such documents would have been a great help to the surveyor to assess the quantity of stock, stacked and lost in fire.  Even in the meetings held between the parties and was also attended by the representative of the Bank, the surveyor did not demand the said documents.  The Insurance Company has failed to clarify as to why it did not demand the said documents either from the Bank or from the Complainant. 

15.    As regards the quantity of stock lost in the fire is concerned, there is an interesting observation of the surveyor in its report.  Clause 12.10 of the report is reproduced as under:

“The Insured vide their letter dt.26.04.2012 responded with weighment details of burnt/salvage quantities mentioning totally 3538 kgs. Hence, taking into account the duration of fire, the product's susceptibility to fire, ash available in the debris etc., we are of the opinion that the stock at the time of fire, of 5133 kgs claimed by the Insured is reasonable; Photographs taken during the survey are annexed to this report.”

16.    The quantity of 5133 kg of the stock is ascertained by the surveyor on the basis of the duration of the fire and the product’s susceptibility to the fire and ash available in the debri etc.  Therefore, the surveyor in his report has accepted that the quantity of the stock lost by the Complainant is about 5133 kg.  He has again reiterated this fact in clause 26.3.8 where he assessed the quantity of CS as 5133 kg and of fresh methanol as 500 kgs. and computed the loss occurred to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.26,51,933/-.  This loss is calculated by the surveyor taking into account the fact that the concentration of the CS was 20%.

17.    It is not a disputed fact that the concentration of the CS can be reduced to any level by diluting it.  There is also no doubt that the water cannons were used for extinguishing the fire and it took 1½ hour to douse the fire completely.  The only logical conclusion is that by the use of water cannons the CS which was lying in the factory of the Complainant got diluted.  There is no dispute that the samples were collected from the site which were analysed and the concentration was found to be CS 20%.  The calculation of lo;ss of 5133 kgs of stock was done by the surveyor on the basis of price value of CS concentration of 20% which is unjustified.  If the CS 20% was stored in the factory at the time of fire then naturally after use of the water cannons by the fire brigade for dousing the fire, its concentration should have been lower than 20%.  The argument of the Insurance Company that the stock lost in fire was CS 20% has no merit.

18.    From the above, it is apparent that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that any fraud had been played or misrepresentation had been made by the Complainant.

19.    I, therefore, hold that the repudiation of the claim especially when the loss to the plant and machinery and the building and the firefighting expenses have not been disputed by the Insurance Company, is an illegal act on the part of the Insurance Company and amounts to deficiency in service.

20.    Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has also taken the objection that the Complainant although is a firm, has not filed   the registration certificate of the firm.  With the permission of the court, the Complainant has placed on record copy of the registration certificate of the Complainant firm and therefore, this argument has no validity.

21.    The surveyor in his report has calculated the loss of plant and machinery @ Rs.11,36,616/-; the building as Rs.2,60,972/- and the firefighting expenses as Rs.46,000/-.  The surveyor has in his report recorded the quantity of stock which was lost in fire as 5133kg.  He has calculated the loss towards this amount of stock @ Rs.26,51,933/- assuming that the stock was of CS 20%.   From the above discussion, it is clear that the stock could not be that of CS 20% and had to be more than that.    There is nothing on record to doubt the testimony of the Complainant that the stored stock was of CS 60%.  It is apparent that the Insurance Company did not even approve the amount claimed towards plant and machinery and building and firefighting expenses and stock which was duly assessed and approved by surveyor in his report.  The Insurance Company has arbitrarily rejected the entire claim for no valid reason.  It amounts to gross deficiency in service.  The Complainant succeeds for the reasons discussed above.  The Complaint is allowed.

22.    DIRECTIONS:

          I award a sum of Rs.3,30,21,189/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lakhs Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Nine only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till its payment as compensation.  I also award litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.

23.    The Complaint stands disposed of in these terms.