DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUT    ES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 167/2020

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT    

By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in service in wrongfully repudiating the claim of the Complainant against the valid and existing insurance policy. 

1. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that Complainant is a company incorporated in the Companies Act 1956 and is a pioneer in its field and enjoys the stellar reputation in the market and has won various awards w.r.t. their business of manufacturing of flexible Polyurethane Foam since 1971 and apart from its main business activity they are also involved in Corporate Social Responsibility through NGO and has filed the present complaint through Sh. Devender Kumar Ahuja authorized person to file the present complaint by Board Resolution dated 28.05.2020.
2. It is further submitted that the Complainant has taken a Fire and special peril Policy dated 09.12.2015 from OP for the period running from 14.12.2015 to 13.12.2016 and paid premium of Rs.22,71,150/- along with service tax of Rs.3,29,317/- and as such he is a consumer and this policy was taken against damages caused by fire excluding the destruction/damage caused to the insured property by its own fermentation, natural heating, spontaneous combustion or damage caused by any heating of dying process.  It is further submitted that the policy was not taken for the purposes of any activity directly intended to generate profit from the policy, and as such there is no element of commercial purpose but it was only for indemnification and actual loss of its own manufacturing plant situated at Greater Noida.  It is further submitted that the sum insured under this insurance policy was Rs.1,23,10,00,000/- along with certain additional ‘add on covers’ which were against building structure, plant, machinery and accessories, furniture, fittings, fixtures, stock and stock in process with another ‘add on cover’ for earthquake and spontaneous combustion considering that the product in which the Complainant company is dealing is of highly inflammable nature of foam.  The OP after a careful examination and inspection of conditions of the Greater Noida Plant and also after taking stock of safety measures and safeguards taken by the Complainant and upon being satisfied that everything is in order, issued the policy and also kept on renewing the insurance policy from year to year basis as per standard norms.  It is also submitted that Complainant had installed state of the art facility in fire safety equipment in all its plants and factories including the plant and machinery at Greater Noida and installed ‘automatic sprinkler system’ for which the Complainant was granted discount on the insurance premium payable under the insurance policy by the OP which discounts were provided after thorough inspection by the officials of OP and pursuant to the satisfaction of the OP that Complainant had adequate fire safety measures in the factory.  It is further submitted that Complainant company is dealing in manufacturing of highly inflammable materials like foam therefore adopts the best practices in the fire safety standards in its manufacturing unit and has installed fire extinguishers (ABC Type), fire retardants door, fire water monitors, fire extinguisher wall (Automatic Sprinkler system) and fire hydrant system as a measure of abandon precaution in order to avoid any fire safety hazard in its manufacturing activity and the safety audit report issued by Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar (Safety Auditor, Lead Auditor ISO 140001-2004 and OHSAS 18001).  The Complainant used to carry out periodic reviews and internal audits of its safety system and precautions, and one such internal audit was conducted by S.S. Kothari, Mehta and Co. in between April, 2015 to August 2015 and upon inspection it was advised that the Complainant should check the wiring of cables in the plant considering the occurrence of minor sparks and accordingly Complainant thoroughly checked the wiring in the Greater Noida Plant and it was found that there was no loose wiring/joints in the electrical wiring in the plant and apart from such safety precautions, the Complainant also had all the required procedure and safety measure in place i.e. Electrical Wiring Diagram, Approved Factory Layout Plan, Factory Licenses from Time To Time, Consent/Approval from Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board from time to time and Fire NOC and the Complainant also obtained the renewal of the final NOC on 27^th August 2016 for the year 2016-17.  Therefore, the fire NOC was valid on the date of fire incidence, and it is further submitted that despite all the measures taken by the Complainant, an untoward and unfortunate incident occurred i.e. the fire broke out at the Greater Noida Plant of the Complainant on 21.05.2016 at around 17:30 hrs and caused huge loss to the building, machinery and stocks upon which Complainant immediately intimated to all the concerned authorities about the same i.e. the information to Station House Officer, Surajpur Police Station, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP), information to Fire Safety Officer and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board.  The complainant also submitted information to DD (Factories) under Section 88 of Factories Act, 1948 in the prescribed Form No.18 and to Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division on 23.05.2016 and gave information to Superintendent Central Excise Range, Aid Division, Commissioner, Noida dated 08.07.2016.  Final Investigation Report dated 12.09.2017 was given by the Police.  It is further submitted that the information of fire incidence was also sent to OP by e-mail intimating it about the fire incidence in the Curing Shed of the plant and it was also informed that rescue process was underway with the help of Fire Department and requested the OP to appoint its Surveyor at the Greater Noida Plant and even informed the OP about the approximate Loss occurred on account of the fire to the tune of Rs.65 Crores which mail dated 20.05.2016 is attached as Annexure-X (Colly).  The OP accordingly appointed G.A. Bashir & Associates, Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. as a Surveyor for assessing the loss of the complainant and insurance who visited the Greater Noida Plant on 21.05.2016 along with their Chartered Accountant and during the said visit Sh. Narender Kumar, DGM of OP, Sh. Shiv Dayal, SDM, Sh. R.S. Jaggi, Dr. Charu, Assistant Directors and Ms. Kirti Scientific Officer of M/s Truth Lab were also present and the said representative of M/s Truth Lab was appointed to conduct forensic examination of the probable cause of fire.  The Complainant thereafter on 12.07.2016 submitted a claim form to the OP revising its assessment of earlier estimated loss of the insurance claim to Rs.43,09,00,000/- (Forty Three Crore and Nine Lakhs only) and claim form is attached as Annexure-Y.  The Complainant provided all the documents as sought by the OP or by the Surveyor from time to time or as required by Truth Labs and it is also highlighted that at the time of fire incidence, the plant of the complainant was equipped with approximately 200 automatic sprinkler system/ powder extinguisher, it had NOC dated 10.04.2015 which was renewed on 27.08.2016.  The provisional Fire NOC dated 25.09.2015 given by the competent authorities and the same was in accordance with National Building Code of India 2005 and none of the aforesaid NOCs required the complainant to install automatic water sprinkler system.  All the information sought by the Surveyor from the period beginning 22.05.2016 till 09.11.2017 were given to the Surveyor and after exchange of multiple correspondence for a period spanning over one year and ten months the Surveyor J. Bashir & Associate finally gave the Surveyor report w.r.t. the fire damage to pre-engineered shed and held that fire at Greater Noida Plant was not on account of any chemical process or storage or on account of any deliberate and intentional use of extraneous fire, the Director of Industrial Safety and Health had also cleared in its inspection report that fire incidence have not found any violation or non-compliance in the running of the Plant at Greater Noida and Surveyor ultimately assessed claim worth Rs.21,38,77,055/- simultaneously Surveyor also concluded that:

• The fire at the Greater Noida Plant was not on account of (a) any chemical process or storage, or (b) any deliberate and intentional use of extraneous fire accelerants;
• The Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health had clearly stated in its inspection report into the Fire Incident that it had not found any violation or non-compliances in the running of the Greater Noida Plant by the Complainant'
• The Surveyor assessed the claim amount at INR 21,38,77,055/- (Rupees Twenty One Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand and Fifty Five only) on Reinstatement Value basis ("RIV"). 

and inter alia concluded by stating that the incident of fire would have been due to poor fire safety standards and poor upkeep maintenance of electrical wiring system and it is stated as:

1. The fire was on account of electrical short circuit in the power cables of the overhead cranes due to their inadvertent collision with each other;
2. The electrical short circuit resulted in generation of frictional sparks in the non-electrical metallic parts as well as leading to generation of electrical sparks with formation of molten copper beads in the heated electrical cables, which fell over the entire flammable and combustible stocks, thereby resulting in fire;
3. The root cause of the fire was therefore electrical short circuit in the electrical cables of overhead cranes after their collision caused due to careless and negligent operations; and
4. The management was negligent as it disregarded the installation of automatic water sprinkler systems. 

Certain observation were also given by the Surveyor w.r.t. the construction of the new process block and an increase in the production capacity about seven months prior to the fire incidence by stating that the same would have change the risk factor of the Insurance Policy and due to above alleged act of the Complainant leading to violation of statutory/ mandatory rules and regulations of the Insurance Policy and would have made it void and as such insurance policy would be in question on account of above non-compliance.It is further submitted that as per the Surveyor Report it also assessed the claim as per the market value at Rs.20,24,74,059/- and as per RIV Value to be Rs.21,38,77,055/-.It is further submitted that after the report of the Surveyor as received, and in order to process the claim, the OP requested the Complainant to provide certain clarification in respect of the allegation made by the Surveyor and highlighted that the plant did not have a valid fire NOC at the time of incidence.The internal audit conducted by S.S. Kothari Mehta & Company has recommended for renewal of the entire electrical wiring of the plant which was not complied with, the report/suggestion given by Truth Lab were not complied with by the management as it did not install smoke detectors and sprinkling system as recommended by the Fire and Safety Authorities, the construction of new process block within the premises of the plant itself was without any consent from the OP although sum insured under the insurance policy was increased by way of two endorsements dated 31.08.2016 and 02.09.2016 by Rs.68,42,00,000/-. During the pendency of the claim apart from other clarifications Complainant responded to the OP’s queries and made all the clarifications vide letter dated 11.04.2018 which is Annexure-DD (Colly) and again vide letter dated 05.06.2018 and 28.06.2018 submitted a detailed reply to the OP making submissions interalia that the Complainant company had already fire NOC for 2015-16 and also had applied for renewal thereof on 07.04.2016 which was duly renewed on 27.08.2016 for the year 2016-17, recommendation given by fire department in provisional NOC were in respect of new block which was under construction at that time, the internal audit report did not mention occurrence of frequent minor electric short circuit due to poor electrical wiring as alleged nor it suggested renewal of entire electrical wiring, the electric wiring diagram was approved only at time of installation of transformer and at the time of increase in load and in this matter the diagram was approved in October 2001.

It is further stated that both i.e. the Surveyor and the Truth Lab were informed about the automatic sprinkler system and these systems were in place at the time of inspection of the Greater Noida Plant before issuing the policy and were considered adequate and satisfactory by the OP and in fact based on this inspection Complainant was provided the discount on the insurance premium.

It is further clarified that after complying with all these formalities and clarification, the Complainant had been continuously following with the OP regarding the status of the claim and aggrieved by such conduct Complainant then wrote an email on 10.12.2018 to OP seeking for a personal hearing to explain the real facts but OP did not grant the personal hearing to the complainant rather sent an email on 10.12.2018 to Ms. Swati, AO of OP stating that:

‘Your file is in process, Madam already cleared. So no need to me.Please wait for sometime.It will be cleared soon’.

However, to the much surprise of the Complainant, the Complainant received a letter bearing reference No. BRO2/2018-19 dated 08.01.2019 from OP thereby repudiating the claim by the insurance company on various grounds i.e. wiring cables were not repaired despite the issues highlighted in the internal audit report, the plant did not hold a valid fire NOC on the date of fire incidence, automatic water sprinkler were not installed and new process block was constructed at the premises and such installations were not notified to OP.

The OP also relied on the forensic investigation carried out by Truth Lab and alleged that incidence was result of electrical short circuit in the power cable or over head cranes due to their inadvertent collusion to each other, the short circuit was the root cause of the fire due to negligence and carelessness of the complainant.

Thereafter, having left with no alternative the complainant requested the Chairman, IRDA to advise the OP to re-open the case and grant a personal hearing so as to enable it to explain its case thereby mentioning all such facts and also disputed the Report of the Surveyor, Report of the Truth Lab, Forensic Services and thereafter on 15.03.2019 Ms. Anjali Chopra AO of the OP asked the complainant to meet Dr. Arun Jain of OP for a personal hearing on 19.03.2019.

In the said meeting the complainant explained all the necessary facts and clarified that their machine is for producing limited quantity of low density foam and quilting and also informed that it was producing only 150 tones of foam per month on the new machine against the maximum output of 200 tones per month and also submitted all the relevant documents once again on 25.04.2019.Despite having personal meetings and submission of all these documents the response of the OP was not positive and accordingly the letter was sent to Mr. Ranjit Gangadharan, GM at the Head office of OP at Mumbai requesting him to provide an update on the status of insurance claim as more than three years had expired since then, but no response was received upto November and the complainant again on 21.11.2019 sent another letter to the Chairman of OP apprising him the inaction of the OP and requesting his personal intervention in the matter however even the aforesaid letter did not have any effect on the OPs w.r.t. prompt action to settle the claim.

Aggrieved from all such activity the complainant then filed an application under RTI Act 2005 on 20.01.2020 thereby requesting for the copy of the report submitted by Delhi Regional Office of the OP to the Head Office of OP in Mumbai however the said request was rejected and complainant filed an appeal before IRDAI on 20.05.2020 which was also dismissed by stating that report did not constitute information and could not be sought from a public authority under RTI Act vide letter dated 27.07.2020 from OP.Complainant was informed that the claim has been repudiated by OP.

Complainant submits that the approach of the OP is malafide without any application of mind and was deficient in providing the services to the complainant as the claim has been rejected malafidely and the reason provided by the OP for rejecting the valid and legitimate claim are based on absolutely frivolous ground and reasons and it is submitted that on a careful perusal of the insurance policy it is evident that none of the reason mentioned in the repudiation of the claim by OP in its initial or final report are grounds which are contained in the insurance policy which can make the insurance policy void.It is also submitted that the grounds on which the insurance policy can become void are limited and none of them are applicable in the present scenario and claim of the complainant is not covered under any of the general exclusion set out in clause A of the Policy.OP failed to take into account the findings of the surveyor report w.r.t. the fire incident at Greater Noida Plant who specifically stated that the fire was not on account of chemical process or storage nor it was deliberate or intentional use of extraneous fire and even directorate of industrial safety clearly stated in its inspection report that it had not found any violation of non-compliance but despite that the claim has been rejected wrongfully on the alleged ground of statutory non-compliance which is malafide.It is reiterated that the insurance policy covered the factory building plant and machinery and the upcoming plant was not covered under the insurance policy at all and therefore the reliance of additional construction is no ground as that additional plant has still not started and once that was started the insurance policy/ endorsement to that plant was also taken which has been conceded by the OP as it had neither changed the risk factor under the insurance policy nor it was any fact which was concealed by the complainant earlier and even otherwise this is not found mention in the general exclusion conditions.It is further submitted that there has been no mis-representation, mis-description, non-disclosure of any material particular in any manner what so ever on the part of the complainant as is being claimed by the OP rather complainant has explained and cooperated everything in providing every material fact to the Surveyor, to the officials of Truth Lab and even has complied with the directions given by M/s Kothari Mehta & Company which was much prior in time and therefore, since, no malafide has been alleged by any of the investigation/surveyor, the OP should not have repudiated the claim.Therefore, decision of the OP is unsatisfactory and deficient which is a deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such complainant has filed the present complaint before the Commission thereby praying that present original petition be allowed and OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,38,77,055/- with interest @ 18% p.a. (i.e. the claim which was finally passed by the surveyor) w.e.f. May 2016 upto the date of actual payment along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and legal fee.

3. Affidavit of Sh. Devender Kumar Ahuja AR is placed on record. 
4. The OP was served and has filed its details reply.  In preliminary submissions/objections OP has stated that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint and the present dispute does not fall within the ambit of provision of Consumer Protection Act which adjudicates the matter summarily rather the matter is triable by Civil Court, the complaint is outside the purview of the said Act, the complainant otherwise does not fall within the definition of consumer.  The present complaint is baseless and fraudulent abuse of the process of law, complainant has no locus to initiate the present proceedings as the loss has been caused and contributed by the sheer negligence and lack of reasonable care on the part of the complainant, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the financer of the complainant has not been made a party.  It is further submitted that the decision of repudiating the claim was based on thorough and indepth inspection of the fire affected site of accident followed by search, identification, collection of evidence and analysis of physical, oral and documentary evidence collected from the spot by the Surveyor and investigator of the OP and it is submitted that the fire has occurred on account of electrical short circuit in the power cables of overhead cranes due to their inadvertent collision with each other, resulting in generation of friction in the electrical metallic parts as well as leading to the generation of electric sparks with formation of molten copper base in the heated electrical cables during the process of electrical short circuit which fell over the flammable and combustible stock of semi finished polyurethane foam initiating fire and subsequently the fire spread to the entire combustible and flammable stock.  It is further submitted that the root cause of the fire is electrical short circuit on account of negligence on the part of complainant in not installing the automatic water sprinkler system as per recommended standard fire safety protocols and even otherwise the complainant did not hold a valid fire NOC on the date of incidence. It is further submitted that the audit conducted by the external agency indicated that there was high fire risk on the subject unit on account of frequent minor electrical short circuit and it was suggested to the complainant to renew the entire electrical wiring at the earliest but the same was not renewed which shows the negligence on the part of the complainant. 
5. It is further submitted that M/s Truth Lab had conducted inspection of the spot in order to ascertain the cause of fire and they visited the fire affected site along with the Surveyor on 21.05.2016, 23.05.2016 and 31.05.2016 and after inspecting the premises thoroughly had drawn the samples for forensic science lab in the presence of complainant and the surveyor, and then had submitted their report that the fire could not be prevented and loss could not be contained due to negligence of the management by not installing smoke detectors and sprinkling system as recommended by fire and safety authorities.  It is also found by the said Truth Lab that the essential fire fighting measures particularly automatic fire extinguisher had not been installed rather complainant installed fire extinguisher balls which failed in restricting the fire in one area and making the fire spread all over.   It is further submitted that there was no policy documenting w.r.t. the entire process to ensure the fire safety in the organization of the complainant and it is submitted that incidences of occurrences of minor sparks in the premises were reported but were treated as minor incidence.  Although the incidences were small yet they had been occurring at regular intervals so it was advisable that wiring cables should have been got checked to avoid any fatal incidence or short circuit which was not properly handled by the complainant and not only this surveyor had also observed that remark given by the internal auditor for renewal of electrical wiring, but surveyor did not find any evidence w.r.t. any improvement/corrections being carried out by the complainant.  Further, it is submitted that production capacity of the unit was increased from 900 Metric tones per month to 2200 Metric Tones per month in September 2015 and if the electrical wiring would have been rectified after the remarks of internal auditor, the incidence of fire could have been avoided. 
6. It is further submitted that on the query raised by the surveyor w.r.t. electrical inspector’s recommendation/compliance, the complainant did not clarify to the surveyor nor provided the amended electrical wiring drawing to the surveyor and therefore the surveyor has given the report w.t.t. negligence on the part of the complainant.  The surveyor further observed that factory inspector had approved factory layout plan dated 25.09.2015 and the same indicates the subject fire damaged portion as curing and storage having an area of 225.40 X 60.80 m, but without fire safety walls as claimed by the insured to have been built prior to the date of incidence the surveyor has also observed that the complainant has enhanced the additional risk by starting two additional generators as against the approved two generators by electrical department vide letter dated 12.07.2002 and even the transformer’s load from 1500 KVA was reduced to 700 KVA and such kind of alteration in power supply to the plant could be instrumental for such failure of electric wiring resulting in electric short circuit.  It is further submitted that the Dy. Director of Factories, GB Nagar, UP had also recommended certain compliances by the factory/complainant as the premises had also suffered fire damages earlier in the year 2009 but the renewal factory licenses for the year 2016 was not presented by the insured showing that such compliance has been done. Further the surveyor has also observed/raised question, on the procurement of renewed factory license and even had spoken to Mr. Dhruv Mathur, CFO on 30.10.2017 who had informed that he would forward these renewed factory license same day itself.  Further, the surveyor had received factory licenses which is found renewed from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 along with a letter of Dy. Director of Industries dated 26.04.2016 i.e. four month after due date of renewal and if the factory license would have been renewed for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 then same should have been made available to the surveyor during his visit on 21.05.2016.  Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the complainant.  It is further stated that the insured has also violated the provision of UP Factory Rules 1950 and Rule 65 sub section 5 specifically reads as under:

5 (a) All Electrical apparatus shall either be excluded from the area of risk or they shall be of such construction and so installed and maintained as to prevent the danger of their being a source of ignition"

Section 38. Sub-Sec. 1 & 1 (b) of The Factories Act, 1948, Defines as under:

In every factory, all practicable measures shall be taken to prevent out break of fire and its spread, both internally and externally, and to provide and maintain

(b) the necessary equipment and facilities for extinguishing fire.

The unit is supposed to be provided with Smoke Detectors, Fire Alarm and Sprinklers in order to prevent/minimize damage by Fire. But the surveyor did not observe such Fire Safety System.

7.  The OP is also highly and very strongly relying upon the increase in production unit by stating that the complainant had increased the production capacity by more than 2½  times without disclosing it to the OP and complainant should have paid enhanced sum insured for both stocks, plant and machinery for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 which was not done and this alteration and addition would always change the risk factor of the policy and the same is even otherwise, the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 
8. It is further submitted that the root cause of the fire although was electrical short circuit but it was due to carelessness and negligence operation by the complainant and its management who had disregarded the installation of automatic water sprinkler, had not obtained the requisite license and who had not changed the electric wiring despite the internal auditor’s report and who has not taken proper care of overhead cranes.  Not only this, it was also observed by the Surveyor that there was a fire main line running along the pre-engineered shed by the side of road with hindrance but workers were not found to have used these facility effectively and timely during the incidence and even the smoke detectors, fire alarming system and such other required equipments were not properly handled by the officials/workers present on the spot at the time of incidence.  The new construction undertaken by the complainant was without any prior information to the insurer which has enhanced the risk of the complainant and also falls within the exclusion clause of the policy.  It is reiterated that despite the breaking out of fire due to short circuit which is prima facie covered by the insured perils listed in the policy, however, the real and proximate cause of the fire was negligence of the complainant which is not covered under the purview of the policy.  It is further submitted that although the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.20,24,74,059/- but since the surveyor has observed, based on his inspection of fire affected premises and considering the safety audit report, internal audit report, forensic report issued by external agency and also the past incidences of the fire in the plant on account of poor electrical wiring quality, and based on all such report,       the OP found that claim was not admissible under the policy and therefore the claim was rejected.
9. It is further reiterated that complainant is a commercial entity and the insurance policy in question is clearly in furtherance of such commercial purpose and hence complainant is not a consumer within the definition of CPA-2019, the claim involves complicated and disputed question of facts and evidence which can only be decided by Civil Court and not summarily by the Consumer Commission and even otherwise there was no deficiency in the service of the OP.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and may be dismissed. 
10. As far as merits are concerned the taking of policy by the complainant, its turnover, incident of fire in the premises of complainant are the admitted facts. 
11. The contents of the preliminary objections are reiterated and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
12.     The complainant has filed its Rejoinder to the detailed reply as filed by OP and it is submitted that the reply warrants no consideration of this Commission and the same is bereft of any merit and the whole reply is misconceived, based on conjectures and self serving assumptions without having any iota of truth in it.  It is submitted that the reply filed by OP is without any authority as the same is not supported by any Board Resolution/Letter of authority authorising Mr. Ramesh Chand to sign and verify the reply on behalf of the OP and therefore in absence of any authorization in favour of Sh. Ramesh Chand the reply cannot be read and be rejected summarily.
13. It is further submitted that without prejudice to this contention the facts stated by the OP in reply are denied and contents of complaint are reiterated and it is submitted that complainant had taken the insurance policy from OP by praying a consideration of Rs.22,71,150/- along with service tax of Rs.3,29,317/-.  The root cause of the fire accident was short circuit and the same is not disputed by OP as short circuit is duly covered by the insurance policy and the alleged electrical sparking as pointed out by the complainant’s auditor, were minor and  electrical wiring was advised to be checked and not replaced by the auditor as is being alleged by the OP, complainant had installed the fire extinguisher balls and it maintains and performs emergency fire action plans, fire safety training as well as check list for fire safety etc. and the plant had fire main line running along with hydrants and the plant has two fire safety officers and as such the complaint deserves to be allowed based on such admissions of the OP. 
14. It is further submitted that the OP has selectively relied upon the conclusion drawn by the surveyor to justify the repudiation of the claim on one hand but simultaneously has ignored the assessment of the loss as done by the surveyor on the other hand.  It is denied that the complainant is not a consumer, or is bad for non joinder of parties on account of not impleading financer bank as there is no deficiency on the part of financer. As far as consumer case is concerned and it is further denied that the complaint involves complicated or disputed question of facts and evidences.  It is further submitted that the ground for repudiation of claim are wrong because the fire accident was not caused due to negligence of the complainant and it is submitted that root cause of fire is electrical short circuit in the electrical cables.  There was no careless and negligence in the operation or in the non installation of smoke detectors and automatic water sprinkler system.  It is denied that the complainant did not hold a valid Fire NOC on the date of fire incident and electric wiring was poor and the same was not changed but all such objections of OP are not maintainable rather wrong and misleading and the complainant is a consumer as he has purchased a policy and is duly covered within the definition of consumer and OP had to provide the services to indemnify the loss if any and the definition of services has been mentioned under section 2 (42) of the Act where services given by Insurance Policy are duly covered for consideration therefore the contention of OP that complaint case is not maintainable as complainant is not consumer is denied. 
15. It is further submitted that where there is a default or negligence with regard to such settlement of financials then it will constitute a deficiency in service on the part of insurance company and repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in services and therefore the complainant is before this Commission.  It is further denied that insurance policy was for commercial activity and it is submitted that policy is only taken for indemnification and actual loss and is not intended to generate profit and In Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Company Limited 2005(1) C. P.C 53, the Hon'ble NCDRC has categorically held that insurance policies are not intended for any commercial purpose. It is further submitted that a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Thus, a person who is found to have hired services for consideration shall 'be deemed to be a consumer notwithstanding that the services were in connection with any goods or their user. Such services may be for any connected commercial activity but insurance policy is not intended for any commercial purpose rather it is only a contract of insurance and contract of indemnity, therefore this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the objection of the OP in this respect is wholly untenable.  Having another alternative and simple remedy cannot curtail the right of the complainant to approach this Commission and even otherwise the contention that it involves complicated question of law which the Consumer Commission cannot decide is also alleged to be of no relevance as the Consumer Act has a different jurisdictional aspect i.e. the National Commission is headed by a person who has been a judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the State Commission is headed by a person who has been a judge of High Court and District Commissions are headed by person who has been or is qualified to be a judge of District Court and therefore mere complication either of facts or law cannot be a ground for denying of hearing as alleged by the OP.
16. It is further submitted that grounds for repudiating of complainant insurance claim as set out in the reply are misconceived, frivolous and baseless as the OP is trying to rely upon the conclusion drawn by the surveyor on one side and very conveniently is ignoring the loss assessed by the Surveyor J. Bashir & Co. and therefore malafide on the part of the OP is self evident. Even otherwise the surveyor report is neither a final finding w.r.t. facts of the insured nor is conclusion and the same has to be purviewed by the Commission in totality and the OP has only relied upon the Surveyor’s report partly vis a vis rejection part which cannot be done as per law.
17. It is further submitted that OP once again claim that fire accident was caused by electrical short circuit in the power cables of the overhead cranes due to their inadvertent collision with each other, resulting in generation of frictional sparks and it is submitted that complainant has already by way of its letter dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure-LL) informed the OP that overhead cranes are so designed that they cannot collide and infact submitted the supplier’s email dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure-JJ) confirming the same.  The complainant is shocked by the OP’s obstinately uncooperative approach towards the evidence provided to it and rejecting the claim without appreciating the exact facts and even otherwise OP has not even claimed in the entire Written Statement that a fire, caused on account of such alleged collusion is excluded from the perils covered under the policy therefore submission of OP that electrical cables of overhead cranes had collided which caused the incident due to carelessness and negligent operation are baseless and it is submitted that the fire incidence cannot be considered to be a result of collision of overhead cranes neither the complainant nor any of its official were ever negligent or careless and the objection of OP is frivolous, unsubstantiated and without any legal force. 
18. As far as installation of automatic water sprinkler system is concerned it is submitted that in view of the technologically advanced system, the complainant installed the automatic sprinkler system of fire balls which is state of the art facility and fire safety equipment and the OP had granted discount on the insurance premium payable in respect of the insurance policy and even otherwise the insurance was granted to the complainant after inspection of the plant by the officials of the OP and after satisfaction of it that complainant had adequate fire safety measures at its place.  It is further submitted fire balls operate automatically and give 360 degree effect to extinguish the fire without requiring any maintenance and operational skill as per the safety audit report issued by S.K. Bhatnagar, Safety Auditor.  It is further clarified that water sprinkler extinguishes fire by water whereas the powder sprinkler extinguishes the fire through powder and both are equally efficient in extinguishing the fire.  Even otherwise, that too without prejudice, it is submitted that OP has failed to point out any requirement of the insurance policy or otherwise which mandates the installation of water sprinkler system only and in the absence of same, the principal defense of the OP stands nowhere and in the absence of such mandate in the insurance policy under law the OP cannot be heard to repudiate the claim on this ground.  It is further submitted that burden of proof is on the OP to justify the repudiation of the complainant’s insurance claim particularly in view of the fact that there is no dispute in existence of the insurance policy and as per settled law, where there is an exclusionary clause, the burden lies on insurer to establish that exclusion clause is duly attracted and in case there is any ambiguity that must be constituted in favour of the insured.  As far as objection w.r.t. having no valid fire NOC is concerned it is denied that the complainant did not have a valid fire NOC at the time of fire incidence and he obtained a fire NOC on 10.04.2015 valid for the year 2015-16 thereafter the complainant obtained a provisional NOC on 25.09.2015 for the new process block being constructed and pursuant to the advice by fire department on 7.04.2016 the complainant applied for renewal of the fire NOC dated 10.04.2015 which application was duly acknowledged by the fire department and as such the complainant had valid fire NOC for the Plant on the date of incidence.  The delay in issuing the fire NOC by fire department cannot be attributed to the complainant as NOC is always issued for a particular financial year running from April of a year to the March of succeeding year.  As far as defect in wiring is concerned it is stated that Sh. S.S. Kothari, Mehta & Company, the internal audit report, have only suggested that the occurrence of frequent minor electric short circuit was due to poor electrical wiring and it at all did not suggest renewal of the entire electric wiring. The report of the internal auditor was duly complied, all the wiring was thoroughly checked and appropriate action were taken by the complainant to ensure the compliance of the report and had not ignored any recommendation. As far as report by the Truth Lab is concerned it is submitted that Truth Lab has relied on the fire safety precautions issued by Polyurethane Foam Association Wayne and J USA which recommends installation of automatic water sprinkler system in the area with significant amount of foam.  The complainant is justified in installing fire extinguisher balls or automatic sprinkler system in the plant which are equally efficient, if not more, and as such the adequate safety measures had already been taken by the complainant as emergency fire action plan, fire safety training, check list for fire safety and all other necessary compliance were confirmed by the auditor in their report.  It is further submitted that safety audit report issued by S.K. Bhatnagar found no defects in the electric wiring at the plant and the complainant vide its letter dated 09.11.2017 to the surveyor clarified that all the recommendations of electric inspector as provided in the electric wiring diagram have been complied with and in fact, post verification by the authorities, the complainant was granted permission for running of generator set and load was sanctioned for transformers vide approval No. 538 & 539 dated 12.07.2002  and even otherwise the repudiation letter of OP did not base the repudiation of the claim on this ground and this ground of repudiation of the claim has been taken for the first time in the reply.  It is further clarified that there was no change in sanctioned load and as such there was no requirement for the obtaining fresh approval for electric wiring diagram and not only this the map approved by the Director (Factories) dated 17.10.2011 clearly show two brick wall with height of 20 Feet and width of 197 Feet each i.e. the fire safety wall and as such the factory has been constructed in strict adherence of layout approved by the authorities and even this was not a ground to repudiate the claim, which is an after thought. 
19. The complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2011  submitted a detailed reply to the DD (Factories) and this fact was communicated to the OP vide letter dated 09.11.2011. Not only this the complainant had all the requisite licenses/ permission to operate the plant including the approved factory license and it is further submitted that OP is disingenuously seeking to draw a connection between the fire of 2009 and fire of 2016 which two are completely unrelated incidence and therefore are misconceived and untenable.
20. As far as the change in the risk factor of the insurance policy is concerned it is stated that the capacity of the process block was not increased from 900 MT per month to 2200 MT per month as  alleged and around 2000 MT could be produced from the existing capacity and the process of new block was installed only for addition of 200 MT per month.  It was clarified and further stated that on a single working shift for 25 days a month the output based on the calculation on the average working capacity was calculated and submitted to the OP but OP is mis-interpreting the same.  Therefore, the contention that complainant has contravened the provision as is being claimed is wrong interpretation by the OP.  New process block was under construction at the time of fire incidence with absolutely no production activity and as such complainant was in compliance with general condition set out in clause B of the Insurance Policy.  It was merely a additional block altogether separate from the property insured under the insurance policy and for which subsequently additional insurance policy have been taken by the complainant from the same OP against consideration and without having any objection of the same and since there was no change in the risk factor for the existing plant, there was no occasion of the complainant to seek any revision of the coverage of the insurance policy.  It is reiterated that the complainant was neither negligent nor careless and took all reasonable care to protect the plant and since the damage was caused on account of short circuit i.e. the one of the cause of the perils in Insurance Policy, the same is applicable and OP is obliged to honour its commitment under the policy.  The real and proximate cause of the fire was short circuit and not the negligence as alleged and therefore the decision of New India Assurance Company Vs Juari Industrial Limited 2009 (9 SCC) is not applicable in the present facts.  The OP has failed to show that the complainant has been negligent in any manner whatsoever or that reasonable care was not taken by the complainant.  It is submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, the evidences on record are sufficient for this commission and therefore the reply of OP be rejected and claim of the complainant be allowed. It is further submitted that OP has not only wrongfully denied the complainant’s valid claim of Rs.43,09,00,000/- which amount is due and payable to the complainant but also has wrongfully  repudiated the claim amount of Rs.21,38,77,055/- as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the OP and such approach on the part of OP is malafide without any application of mind and therefore it is submitted that Commission be pleased to grant the relief. 
21. The complainant has filed evidence of Sh. Devender Kumar Ahuja its AR in support of this claim and has exhibited 58 documents and OP has filed evidence of Sh. Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Manager and has not exhibited any document but has relied upon the Annexure filed by the complainant.   OP has also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Shahid J. Basheer, Director of Company who has filed the Surveyor’s Report.        
22. The Commission has heard the arguments at length and has perused the records.    
23. Both the parties have filed their detailed written synopsis.
24. There are few basic contentions as raised by the OP in its written statement interalia that the present dispute does not fall within the ambit of provision of CPA where the matters are decided summarily rather the matter is to be disposed off by civil courts, the present incident has happened and loss has been caused which is contributed by the sheer negligence and lack of reasonable care on the part of complainant, complaint is bad for non joinder of parties as the financer of the complainant has not been made a party, the fire has occurred on account of electrical short circuits in the power cable of over head cranes due to their inadvertent collusion with each other resulting in generation of frictional force, there was negligence on the part of complainant in not installing the automatic water sprinkler system as per recommended fire safety protocols, the complainant did not hold a valid fire NOC on the date of incidence and even in the internal audit conducted by the agency indicated that there was high fire risk on the subject unit on account of frequent minor electrical short circuits and as per the report of this surveyor the fire could have been prevented and loss could have been contained if the complainant would not have been negligent or it had installed smoke detectors and sprinkler system as recommended by fire and safety authorities and as automatic fire extinguisher balls were installed which failed in restricting the fire in one area and then making the fire spread all over and further the production capacity of the unit was increased from 900 MT Tones per month to 2200 MT Tones per month in September 2015 and if the electrical wiring would have been renewed after the remarks of internal auditor the incident could have been avoided. It is further argued that complainant is running a commercial entity therefore insurance policy in question is for commercial purpose and hence complainant is not a consumer within the definition of CPA-2019. Apart from the objections taken in the written statement, OP has also filed a written synopsis and has relied upon the report of internal audit on fire and safety measures which report says that the product in which the complainant was dealing was a high risk rating to fire and safety measures and since there were occurrences of minor sparks in the plant at regular interval which were not properly taken care of by the complainant, and management had to change the wiring cables which was not done, which amounts to negligence on the part of complainant. It is further stated that even earlier a fire had occurred in 2009 from the overhead cranes and in its final survey report dated 23.02.2018 the surveyor has reported that subject building was earlier in fire due to electric short circuits in the year 2009 and despite that the proper care was not taken for the overhead cranes which has caused the present fire accident in hand. It is further argued that there was no updated revised approved factory layout plan issued by the factory inspector though the subject building was earlier in the fire in 2009 and since there was non-compliance of electrical safety and no approved electrical wiring diagrams issued by the electrical safety inspector have been filed which were observed by the surveyor therefore the complainant has flouted the terms and conditions of the policy and apart from being gross negligent there was certain violations of various guidelines w.r.t. approved factory layout plan and starting of new process block, the repudiation by the OP was as per the guidelines and exclusion clause of the policy. The Commission would be dealing all these contentions one by one.
25. The complainant in its written synopsis has started its arguments by stating that complainant had a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from the OP for which he has paid a consideration of Rs.22,71,150/- with service tax of Rs.3,29,317/- for a sum insured of Rs.1,23,10,00,000/- along with certain add on covers for the period 14.12.2015 to 13.12.2016 and additional endorsement dated 31.08.2016 for an additional insured sum of Rs.45,42,000/- has also taken for which there is a additional endorsement on the policy.  It is submitted that insurance policy was issued to the complainant by OP only after careful examination and inspection of conditions of the factory, safety measures and safeguards taken by the complainant and only after the inspection of all the units of the complainant and presuming it that everything is in the order the OP has been renewing the insurance policy from time to time and year after year basis and as far as date of fire is concerned, complainant had sent an email to the OP intimating it about the incident and the rescue process which was underway and preliminary estimated loss was assessed by the complainant as Rs.65,00,00,000/- (Sixty Five Crores) and the complainant thereafter submitted a claim revising its assessment to Rs.43,09,00,000/- and it is further submitted that pursuant to the assessment made in the surveyor report the complainant has now restricted its claim only to Rs.21,38,77,055/- as per the report of the surveyor and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- qua deficiency in service.
26. Coming to the arguments part it is submitted that complainant is a consumer and complaint is maintainable and it is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties as it alone has the insurance from the OP who availed the services of the OP for having an insurance policy which was obtained to cover the risk and was only intended for indemnification and actual loss for its own manufacturing plant.
27. It is further submitted that the non joining of the financer it neither required under CPA nor there was any deficiency on the part of the financer and therefore there is no requirement to make the financer of the complainant as a party.
28. It is further argued that the fire accident was caused on account of short circuit which is admitted by the OP in its written statement as well and which is duly covered under the insurance policy and further OP has not disputed the claim made by the complainant nor the pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant. It is further stated that insurance policy covers the loss caused to the complainant on account of fire incident and it is one of the terms and condition of the insurance policy that insurance company shall have accepted the premium required for the renewal of the policy, then insurance company shall pay to the insured the value of the property at the time of happening of its destruction or amount of such damages at its option to reinstate or to replace the loss of such property. It is further argued that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose rather policy is taken for indemnification of actual loss and is not intended to generate profit and it is settled law the insurance policy are not intended for any commercial purpose rather it is a mere contract of indemnity as it was held in Harsolia Motors V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 SCC online (NCDRC) Page 11 and Indraprastha Gas Ltd. V/s New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 SCC online.
29. It is further argued that burden of proof is on the OP to establish the circumstances under which the complainant’s insurance claim has been repudiated and OP has failed to allege much less prove that the ground on which the claim has been repudiated falls under the exclusionary clause of the insurance policy. It is submitted that the contention of OP that the fire has been caused on account of contributory negligence on the part of complainant is not covered under the exclusion clause and accident of fire and peril itself is an incident and there is no clause by which negligence as alleged be made a ground to repudiate the claim. It is further argued that the exclusionary clause in the insurance policy, if relied upon by OP then the burden lies on the insurer to establish that the exclusion clause is attracted and any ambiguity must be construed in favour of insured as it was held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Rajeshwar Sharma and Ors. 2019 (2 SCC 671) and further it is settled law that while interpreting the policy of insurance, the Court have to give a natural meaning to the expression used in the document and no addition or no subtraction from the terms and conditions is permissible and in the present case OP has admitted the existence and validity of the policy, payment of the premium, incidence happened, loss incurred by the complainant as per the assessment of loss conducted by the surveyor and now the OP is merely disputing its liability to pay insurance cover on account of several baseless and unfound reasons.
30. As far as electric short circuit is concerned it is reiterated that electric short circuits are duly covered in the policy and as far as collusion of over head cranes or non installation of automatic water sprinkler is concerned, the OP has not even claimed that a fire caused on account of such claims is excluded from the perils. It is further stated that there is no evidence on the face of record filed by the OP that incidence has occurred on account of over head collusion of cranes, who stated this fact to the OP, who recorded the statement w.r.t. the such over head cranes and therefore this is a fact which is not more than a presumption being driven from the previous fire incidence and in absence of any evidence, it only is a hearsay that sparking might have happened on account of friction in the over head cranes installed in the unit.
31. It is further argued that the over head cranes are an integral part of plant and machinery of the complainant and even if the previous fire is taken into consideration then even on this ground, the previous claim was not denied rather paid by the insurance Co. and therefore despite having established the fact in the previous incident the claim was paid by the OP without litigation whereas in this case there is no evidence except hearsay w.r.t. friction in the over head cranes.  Apart from mere presumption there is no document on record by which the OP or the surveyor would have come to the conclusion w.r.t. any fact of friction w.r.t. over head cranes and not only this the OP has not even claimed that fire has been occurred  on account of such events and even if it is so, it is covered in the exclusion clause of the policy. As far as non-installation of automatic water sprinklers are concerned it is stated that attempt of the OP to repudiate the claim of insurance policy was based on such baseless and unattainable factors, in fact installation of the Fire balls was prior to the inspection of the policy and since the OP has inspected the unit before granting the insurance/renewing the insurance and after having observed that there is no water sprinkler system rather it is Automatic Fire Ball Based System has been installed and then OP has issued the policy to the complainant and therefore now the OP cannot say that there was any violation on the part of complainant w.r.t. non-installation of water sprinkler system. Had there been any such objection in the mind of the OP or its officers who settled the premium, they could have denied the insurance policy to the complainant but after having inspected the premises and after having observed the non-installation of water sprinkler system and after observing that there was a fire ball based system in the factory premises now the OP is estopped from repudiating the claim on this ground. It is further argued that neither this is a part of the exclusion clause nor the insurance policy can be avoided on this ground and therefore the contention of OP w.r.t. water sprinkler system is unfounded. It is further argued that the OP has failed to establish from the insurance policy which mandates the installation of water sprinkler system only the absence of which has been made a principal defense by the OP. It is further argued that the OP has relied upon the surveyor report blindly particularly in the circumstances that surveyor himself was not a witness to the fire incident and finding made by him are only presumptory. It is further argued that reliance of the OP on the survey report to repudiate the claim is wholly misplaced and shows malafide intention of OP who is relying on the purported conclusion drawn by surveyor while ignoring the explanations provided by the complainant from time to time. It is further argued that on one hand the OP has relied upon the surveyor report w.r.t. certain facts but on the other hand it has totally ignored the loss suffered by the complainant to the extent of Rs.21,38,77,055/- and it is against the settled law as it was held in M/s Handilal Jain Cold Storage and Ice Factory Pvt. Ltd. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 SCC online, where it was interalia held that surveyor report is relevant for assessment /quantification of losses. The OP therefore is suitably sometime relying upon the report of the surveyor alleging negligence and simultaneously is not relying the report of the surveyor w.r.t. the loss occurred in the fire of the complainant’s factory. It is further argued that ground of repudiation by the OP are basically, alleged failure to replace wiring, alleged absence of fire NOC, failure to install automatic water sprinkler, failure to intimate the OP about the construction of new process and the same has been dealt in detail by the complainant by stating that the internal auditor S.S.  Kothari Mehta and Co. neither advised replacing the wiring /cable nor mentioned that safety measures were not implemented rather the report suggested that wiring should be checked to avoid any fatal accident due to short circuit which was done by the complainant and appropriate action was taken and wiring was found to be satisfactory. Not only this, an independent safety audit was conducted by S.K. Bhatnagar Safety Auditor and it was confirmed that there was no loose wiring joints in the electric wiring across the plant and machinery.  Above all it is argued that the nature of the peril covered in the insurance policy, the nature of the business of the complainant and the product in which the complainant is dealing all were well known to the OP that the product of complainant is highly combustible and inflammable and therefore so far the premium was being taken and no incident had happened the OP was happy w.r.t. all the premiums but once the unfortunate incident has happened then all sorts of such excuses have started and apart from the exclusion clauses the OP has no other external factor which can be brought in for the purpose of denying the claim. As far as the issue of no valid NOC on the part of complainant is concerned it is stated that complainant obtained fire NOC on 10.04.2015 which was valid for the year 2015-16 thereafter complainant obtained a provisional NOC from 25.09.2015 for the new processing block and pursuant to the advice of the fire department on 07.04.2016 the complainant applied the renewal of the fire dated 10.04.2015 which was granted for the relevant period and valid from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and therefore on the date of occurrence the complainant had a valid NOC from the concerned department for which representation has already been submitted.  As far as failure to intimate the OP regarding construction of the new process block is concerned it is argued that capacity of the new process block was never increased from 900 MT Tone per month to 2200 MT Tone per month and the existing capacity was likely to be increased only for an additional 200 MT Tonnes and on the date of incidence no such processing block was functional at all rather it was under construction at that time with absolutely no production and after the formally handing over processing unit from the contractor w.r.t. that block on 12.08.2016 the complainant obtained a separate endorsement from OP to account for increase in production capacity which was duly accepted by the OP and as such the OP has no evidence at all which can show that the new processing block was operational/functional on the date of unfortunate incident. As far as policy documentation on emergency fire action plan is concerned or updated revised approved factory layout plan is concerned it is submitted that all fire safety trainings, checklist for fire safety etc. were in place as confirmed by the internal audit reports issued by S.S. Kothari Mehta and Co. and copy of the approval dated 17.08.2011 issued by Dy. Director (Factories) was submitted to the surveyor at the relevant time and it was clarified that there was no change in sanctioned load and as such there was no requirement for obtaining fresh approval for electrical wiring diagram.
32. As far as negligence part is concerned it is argued that the approximate cause of fire incident is stated to be the negligence, rejection due to past fire incident record and poor fire safety standard to which it is argued that complainant has not acted in negligent manner and has taken a reasonable care in conducting its operation in the plant, it had all the requisite licenses, permits and approvals, it has automatic fire ball system installed and complainant has never been negligent in any manner nor it failed to comply with any standard and specifications w.r.t. fire fighting system. It is reiterated that complainant had the state of art facilities at all its factories and is extremely cautious and careful about the safety measures at its factories including the plant and machinery. In any event the negligence is not a part of the exclusion clause of the insurance policy and in absence of any specific exclusion the OP cannot deny the rightful claim of the complainant.
33. In nutshell it is argued that a fire has been occurred at the plant of the complainant, the prima facie observation of the surveyor was that it has occurred due to short circuit which is duly covered in the insurance policy. The basic contention of OP that complainant was negligent is without any basis and even otherwise negligence is not finding place in exclusion clause and further the onus to prove that a particular term existed in exclusion clause of the OP has not been established and therefore all other objections w.r.t. norms, automatic sprinkler system or increase in the production capacity, non-obtaining the relevant license are nothing but a vague contention for denying the rightful claim of the complainant and therefore complaint of complainant be allowed.            
34. After observing the written arguments as filed by both the parties, the Commission is now adverting to the repudiation letter.  The repudiation letter as placed on record by OP read as follows:

M/s Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd.

Unit No.6, 51-A Udyog Vihar,

Greater Noida GB Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh

Dear Sirs

Sub: Admissibility of your Claim under Policy No.320300/11/15/01/00000212 in respect of Loss dated 20.05.2016

This has reference to the Claim lodged in respect of damage which occurred as a result of a Fire Incident at your premises on 20.05.2016.

1. The claim was assessed by our surveyor after in-depth inspection of the fire affected site followed by collection and analysis of samples after taking exhaustive samples for study and analysis besides enquiry with persons at site, the surveyor arrived at the following conclusions:

• It was noticed from the report of the surveyor that despite your internal audit carried out by Miss. S.S. Kothari Mehta & Co. the wiring cables were not replaced to avoid fatal incidence due to short circuit in the electrical wiring. The auditors had also given high risk rating to the fire & safety measures existing in the premises. The report further mentioned that no proper fire safety measures were implemented.
• The plant did not hold a valid 'Fire NOC’ as on date of the incident as the recommendations issued by Fire Authorities as a precursor to issuance of NOC were not found complied with by the insured.
• The insured did not undertake the installation of automatic water sprinkler systems in accordance with recommended safety Standards.
• A new Process Block was constructed within the insured premises and production capacity was increased from 900 MTV month to 2200 MT/month and such alteration/addition was not found notified to the underwriter.

Such an act would have changed the risk factor of the Policy issued to you as per the provision contained under the General Conditions of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy under Para 3 (a) This reads as under:

“3. Under any of the following circumstances the insurance ceases to attach as regards the property affected unless the Insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damage, obtains the sanction of the Company signified by endorsement upon the policy by or on behalf of the Company:

(a) If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured Perils".

2. Truth Labs Forensic Services was engaged to carry out a Forensic Investigation to determine the cause of fire, who concluded that:

a) The incident occurred due to electrical short circuit in power cable of the overhead cranes due to tier inadvertent collision with each other, which fell over the flammable stocks of foam, initiating fire.

b) The root cause of the fire was electrical short circuit due to careless and negligent operations Negligence was also attributable on the part of the management to have disregarded the installation of the Automatic Water Sprinkler Systems as per the recommended Standard Fire Safety Protocols for such industries.

In view of the above and other due consideration to all material facts, we find that the claim is not admissible under our Policy and therefore no liability arises on part of our company and hence, the claim stands repudiated. We refrain from going into the quantum of loss claimed/ assessed in as much as there exists no liability under the policy.

Notwithstanding, our Company reserves the right to elaborate on various factual aspects/ evidence, if nfecessary We also reserve the right to rely upon any policy provisions which may apply to this loss and do not waive compliance or the application of any such provisions

Thanking you

Yours Truly

Sd/-

Deputy General Manager

35. Now coming to the first aspect that the report of the surveyor based on the internal audit carried by S.S. Kothari Mehta and Co. It is contended by OP that wiring cables were not replaced to avoid fatal accident due to short circuit in the electric wire etc. The complainant has argued that the S.S. Kothari Mehta and Co. was an internal auditor and it never stated for any replacement of wire rather whatever the directions were given and observations were made by the internal auditor  i.e. that S.S. Kothari Mehta and Company. It neither advised for replacing the cables nor mentioned that safety measures were not implemented rather advised aspects and points were taken care of accordingly complete wiring was set probably of fatal accident and to protection and found the wiring to be satisfactory and in fact there was no loose wiring joints in the electric wiring across the plant. The report as filed by the surveyor on this aspect is not supported by any specific statement which may support its contention that the guidelines given by the S.S. Kothari Mehta and Co. were not checked or no appropriate protection was taken by the complainant. Law is otherwise well settled that if the wires have not been thoroughly checked then it may amount to negligence on the part of complainant and the counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the peril covered in the insurance policy was a fire through short circuit and the short circuit is duly covered in the peril and also does not fall in the exclusion clause and if the OP is trying to lay emphasis on some negligence of the complainant then firstly there is no negligence on the part of complainant in protecting its plant and machineries from the fire, and even otherwise the negligence is not an aspect which falls within the exclusion clause of the insurance policy and in support of his contention he has relied upon 2014 SCC online NCDRC 735 titled M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited V/s New India Insurance Co. where the Hon’ble NCDRC in para 9 and 10 held as follows:

9: It would thus be seen that the insurance policy does not exclude the damage from fire due to poor maintenance, use of substandard quality spares or inherent design defect in the machine insured by the insurance company. Therefore, even if we proceed on the assumption that the fire which resulted in damage to the property of the complainant company took place on account of poor maintenance or use of sub standard spares or on account of some inherent design defect in the machinery installed at the filling station, the liability of the insurance company is not excluded. It is settled legal proposition that while interpreting the policy of insurance, which is nothing but a contract between the insurer and the insured, the courts have to give a natural meaning to the expressions used in the documents and it is not open to the Court to make any addition to or subtraction from the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. Reference in this regard may be made to Harris v. Poland (1941) 69 LLR 35 (KB). In the above referred case, the plaintiff had taken a house holders comprehensive policy in respect of her flat, insuring it against the loss or damage which might arise from various causes including fire. On a particular day, the plaintiff wrapped up her jewellery, which formed part of the insured articles, and kept them under the coal and wood, which was ready for lighting in the grate. On her return at night, she forgot having kept the jewellery in the grate and lit the fire, as a result of which, the jewellery was partly destroyed and partly damaged by fire. The claim filed by her was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the loss had taken place due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It was also painted out that the fire had taken place in the place where it was expected to be lit and therefore the loss sustained by the plaintiff was not covered under the policy. The insurance policy issued in that case provided insurance against the loss or damage caused by fire and did not expressly exclude the loss caused on account of the negligence of the insured: It was contended on behalf of the insurance company that the words loss or damage caused by the fire used in the insurance policy means the loss or damage Caused by a fortuitous catching fire of something not intended to be consumed by fire in a place where fire was not intended to be. The contention however was rejected by the Court and during the course of the judgment, it was, Inter alia, observed that the Court has no right to imply, in a written contract, any such stipulation unless, on considering the terms of the contract in a reasonable and business manner, an implication necessarily arises that the parties must have intended that the suggested stipulation should exit. It was further observed that it was not enough to say that it would be a reasonable thing to make such implication. Noticing that the policy documents is prepared by the underwriters, it was held that any ambiguity in the documents must be taken more strongly against the underwriters and if a policy is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, that one will be adopted which is more favourable to the insured. It was also observed relying on Austin v. Drew, (1815) 4 Camp. 360, during the course of the judgment, that nowadays, it is well established that negligence is immaterial in such a case and if there is a fire, there is no answer that it was occasioned by the negligence or misconduct of the servants

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Zuari Industries Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 70, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in General Assurance Society Ltd. v Chandmull Jain, AIR 1966 SC 1644 holding there in that in case of ambiguity in a contract of insurance the ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.

10. In the case before us, since the insurance policy obtained by the complainant company did not exclude the liability of the company in case the fire took place due to poor maintenance, sub-standard quality of spares or manufacturing or inherent design defect in the machine, the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim on the aforesaid grounds.

36. This contention or any other contention which is revolving around the poor maintenance or negligence on the part of the complainant therefore is not a valid ground to repudiate the claim.
37. Now, coming to the second ground taken in the repudiation letter that the plant did not hold a valid fire NOC on the date of incidence. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for OP relying upon that the plant did not hold a valid fire NOC as on the date of incidence and complainant had definitely written a letter dated 07.04.2016 for renewal of the NOC of old building but said NOC was renewed on 27.08.2016 i.e. after the date of incident and as such the valid NOC was not in possession of the complainant on the date of incidence therefore the claim was rejected. Counsel for complainant on the other hand has argued that the complainant obtained the fire NOC on 10.04.2015 which was valid for the year 2015-16 thereafter complainant obtained a provisional NOC on 25.09.2015 and pursuant to the advice of fire department the complainant  applied for renewal of the fire NOC on 10.04.2015 which was duly acknowledged by the office concerned and it was applied well before the date of the fire incident and delay in issuing fire NOC by Fire Department cannot be imputed to the complainant and ultimately NOC has been issued on 27.08.2016 which was valid for the year 2016-17 i.e. from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e. covering the date of the incident and therefore it was valid for the date of fire incidence. There is no denial that complainant had already applied for renewal of the license and it was given in continuity of the previous NOC and that too even post incident, and without bringing anything on record that it has been renewed with certain riders or exceptions. Therefore the complainant may not be in physical possession of the NOC/license from the department concerned but once it has been validated then it relates back to the date from which it was held valid by the department. Therefore, this contention of the OP is also not well found.
38. It is further argued that the aforesaid ground of repudiation is not identified as an exclusion clause in the policy.  It is admitted proposition that contract of insurance is a contract based on the terms and conditions and once these terms and conditions are not finding mention in the exclusion clause then the OP cannot take benefit of such clause. Further also it is well settled principle of law that insurance Co. should have avoided to take such technical objections repudiating the claim once it does not fall within the ambit of exclusion clause. Further, this is an incidence of Fire and malafide on the part of the complainant has not been imputed. 
39. The next contention of the OP is that failure of installation of automatic water sprinkler system etc. Ld. Counsel for the OP has argued  that automatic water sprinkler system is a system of water pipes  fitted with sprinklers heads at suitable place and height and designed to activate automatic control which helps in extinguishing the fire by the discharge of water and it is submitted that above compliance have been laid down by the fire department in terms of the guidelines given under Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Safety Act 2005.  To comply effective provision for the fire prevention and fire safety measures and since they were not installed by the complainant, the claim has been rightly rejected in terms of the opinion given by the surveyor.  
40. The complainant on the other hand has argued that the insurance policy was issued to the complainant by the OP only after careful examination and inspection of the Plant at the Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Safety Measures and Safe Guards taken by the complainant are in pursuant to the previous fire incident at the complainant’s Rakholi Unit in 2011. The OP inspected all the units of the complainant including the Greater Noida Plant and in view of the technologically advance automatic Fire Ball Extinguisher System were installed at the Greater Noida Plant and these are  the state of the art facility and fire safety equipments at all its plants.  The complainant has employed and installed Fire Extinguishers (ABC Type) Fire Retardant Doors, Fire Water Monitors, Fire Extinguishers Ball (Automatic sprinkler system) and Fire Hydrant System as a major and abundant precaution in order to avoid any fire safety hazard in its manufacturing unit and this was done as the product, in which the complainant is dealing/manufacturing are high flammable and hazardous. Not only this, the insurance Co. had inspected the premises before the insurance of the policy and this system was not objected to by the Insurance Co. and therefore, now after having been satisfied with the fire safety system and gadgets, the OP cannot take this objection that water sprinkler system was not installed or that automatic Fire Ball Extinguisher System were installed. It is further submitted that the Fire Ball Extinguisher System works automatically at 360 degree effect without any intervention of the human agency and therefore once the better system has been installed which has been accepted and approved by the insurance Co. before the renewal of the policy this contention of the OP is not well found. 
41. The Complainant has further argued that even otherwise this contention of the OP is not well found as per the guidelines w.r.t. Fire Protection under the National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC) and the fire and life safety rules covered under part IV and as per clause 5.1 to 5.1.7 (g)  which reads as under:

5.1 Fire Extinguishers/Fixed Fire Fighting Installations

5.1.1 All buildings depending upon the occupancy use and height shall be protected by fire extinguishers, wet riser, down-comer, automatic sprinkler installation, high/medium velocity water spray, foam, gaseous or dry powder system in accordance with the provisions of 5.1.2 to 5.1.9.

1. These fire extinguishers/fixed installations shall be in accordance with accepted standards [4(20)]. The typical requirements of fire extinguishers/wet riser/ down-comer installation and capacity of water storage tanks and fire pumps, etc shall be as specified in Table 23. The requirements regarding size of mains/ risers shall be as given in Table 24. The typical arrangements of down-comer and wet riser installations are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The wet riser shall be designed for zonal distribution ensuring that unduly high pressures are not developed in risers and hose- pipes.
2. In situations where one occupancy is provided with all the required fire protection arrangements but due to proximity of unprotected buildings around, causing exposure hazard to the protected building, the protected building walls facing the unprotected hiking shall be made of the requisite fire resistance rated materials or alternatively provided with water curtains /drencher system which can be actuated, when necessary.
3. First-aid fire fighting appliances shall be provided and installed in accordance with good practice. The fire fighting equipment and accessories to be installed in buildings for use in fire fighting shall be in accordance with the accepted standards contained in (4(201) and shall be maintained periodically so as to ensure their perfect serviceability at all times.
4. In addition to wet riser or down-comer, first-aid hose reels shall be installed on all the floors of buildings of 15 m in height or more shall be in accordance with accepted standards. The first-aid hose reel shall be connected directly to the riser/down-comer main and diameter of the hose reel shall not be less than 19 mm.

5.1. Static Water Storage Tanks

A satisfactory supply of water for the purpose of fire fighting shall always be available in the form of underground/terrace level static storage tank with capacity specified for each building with arrangements or replenishment by mains of alternative source of supply at the rate of 10001/ min for underground static storage tanks. When this is not practicable, the capacity of static storage tanks shall be increased proportionately in consultation with the local fire brigade.

The static storage water supply required for the above mentioned purpose shall entirely be accessible to the fire engines of the local fire service. Provision of suitable number of manholes shall be made available for inspection, repairs, insertion of suction hose, etc. The covering slab shall be able to withstand the total vehicular load of 45 T equally divided as a four point load when the slab forms a part of pathway/ driveway.

The domestic suction tank connected to the static water storage tank shall have an overflow capable of discharging 22501/ min to a visible drain point from which by a separate conduit, the overflow shall be conveyed to a storm water drain.

1. To prevent stagnation of water in the static water storage tank, the suction tank of the domestic water supply shall be fed only through an overflow arrangement to maintain the level therein at the minimum specified capacity. 
2. The static water storage tank shall be provided with a fire brigade collecting head with 4 number 63 mm diameter (2 number 63 mm diameter for pump with capacity 1 4001/min  instantaneous male inlets arranged in a valve box at a suitable point at street level and connected to the static tank by a suitable fixed pipe not less than 150 mm in diameter to discharge water into the tank when required at the rate of 2 2501/ min, if tank is in the basement or not approachable for the fire engines.

5.1.7 Automatic Sprinklers

Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in:

1. basements used as car parks or storage occupancy, if the area exceeds 200 m2;

b) multi-level basements, covered upper floors used as car parks, and for housing essential services ancillary to a particular occupancy or for storage occupancy, excluding any area to be used for sub-station, A.C. plant and DG set:

c. any room or other compartment of a building exceeding 1 125 m² in area except as in (g) (see note 1), if so advised by local authority ; d. departmental stores or shops, if the aggregate covered area exceeds 500 m²;

e. all non-domestic floors of mixed occupancy which constitute a hazard and are not provided with staircases independent of the remainder of the buildings;

f. godowns and warehouses, as considered necessary:

g. on all floors of the buildings other than residential and educational buildings, if the height of the building exceeds 15 m (45 mtr. in case of group housing and apartments) ( see Note 1),

Based on all the guidelines, Ld. Counsel for complainant has further argued that the fire extinguishers have been made mandatoryand it is not the case of the complainant that the building of the plant and machinery of the complainant was having height of more than 15 meters and therefore even if the automatic water sprinkler system has not been deployed and fire balls have been installed then it is not a violation of NBCC rules and therefore this argument of the OP is not well found.

The Commission is in agreement with this contention of thecomplainant that once there is no violation w.r.t. to any advisory/provision or rule of NBCC and once the Insurance has been granted/renewed after having made the Inspection of the plant and machinery of the OP, then if an unfortunate incident has happened, then OP was not required to take objection of such nature.The OP would have been well within his rights to overload the premium or even to refuse the renewal of the Insurance after the inspection of premises, but it has not been done. Neither, there is any adverse comment by the Insurance Co. pursuant to issuance /renewal of the policy w.r.t. to fire safety measures, nor there had been any objection prior to the date of fire incident and now therefore, the repudiation of the claim by OP on this ground is not justifiable.Ld. Counsel for OP on the other hand has only relied upon the surveyor report. The report of the surveyor on this aspect is based on the facts, which have been told to it by OP and otherwise, Surveyor has no role to comment on it, once the OP has not objected for such installation of Fire Ball Extinguisher System.

The next contention of OP that a new processing block was constructed by the OP within the insured premises and production capacity was increased from 900 MT to 2200 MT per month which is an alteration/addition and is in violation of the policy.

The Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that the capacity of the new process block was never increased from 900 MT to 2200 MT per month as alleged by the surveyor and in fact 2000 MT capacity could have been produced from the existing unit as well and in fact on 25.03.2019 the complainant submitted the catalogue of the supplier of the foaming machine confirming output to the existing machine which was 600 kg per minute and having theaverage running output to the extent of 450 kg per minute while around 2000 MT could have been produced from the existing capacity. The new processing block was being constructed only for an additional 200 MT capacity per month and it was under construction at the time of fire incidence with no production activity at that time and not only this, until thecompletion of construction of new processing block, the risk was of the contractor, and once it was handed over by the contractor to the complainant, then only the complainant, post the completion of the construction of new processing block on 12.08.2016, obtained a separate endorsement from the OP for increase in the production capacity pursuant to the enhancement of 200 MT capacity per month and this endorsement was obtained on 02.09.2016 for an additional insured sum (IDV) of Rs.21,38,77,055/-. Ld. Counsel for complainant has only relied upon the Page No.259 of Surveyor’s Report where the Surveyor found:

‘We found the insured was building a new shed of about 800 M2 area which confirm that the New Processing Block was under construction and therefore this ground of the OP is not well found.’

The onus was upon the OPto prove that this new processing block was in working condition at the time of incidence which would have excluded the complainant from getting the claim that being in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of the increase in capacity/production. The OP has not filed any document on record nor has even remotely stated as to on which date the said additional unit started manufacturing/processing the final outcome.Rather the evidence shows that the complainant gave a proposal for additional insured sum which was duly accepted by the OP and necessary endorsement was done post the incident of fire. It was onus upon the OP to prove that in fact the production in the additional processing unit was in progress on the date of fire incident.There is no such document filed either by the surveyor or by the insurer. On the other hand keeping in view the application of the complainant for an additional endorsement and payment of additional premium, the OP company has accepted the proposal as it is, and therefore this contention of the OP is not well found. Before making endorsement, the Insurance Co. must have taken the proposal of additional IDV, and in that proposal date of commencement of the additional processing block would have been mentioned by the complainant and that has been not disputed by the OP.That application is not filed or relied upon by the OP, for the reason best known to it, stating that the new processing block was operational on the date of fire incidence. If that application would have been filed by OP, it could have processed that the date of commencement or functional of this New Processing Block was in fact pre fire incidence. Not filing of the said Proposal Form or non giving the same to the surveyor, to get it appreciated would make the contention of OP, futile and it therefore puts the complainant at better footing that the additional processing unit was not operational/ functional on the date of the fire incidence. The contention of the complainant on the other hand stand proved when the surveyorhimself stated that the Processing Block was under construction.The OP therefore has not been able to prove that new processing block was functional on the date of fire incidence and therefore is not able to take benefit of exclusionary clause. This ground of repudiation taken by OP therefore is also not finding any merit.

There are only four main grounds of repudiation of the claim by the OP and in addition to these arguments the OP has argued that the complainant was running a commercial unit and therefore he is not a consumer within the definition of a CPA-2019. This contention of the OP is not well found as it has already been settled proposition of law in ‘Harsolia Motors V/s National Insurance Co. 2004 SCC Online, wherein it was held that thepolicy is given against aperil and by merely issuing a policy for a unit, which isbeing run for a commercial activity that automatically does not prove that policy was issued for some commercial interest, and after discussing various judgments the Hon’ble NCDRC ultimately held that:

‘in this view of the matter a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not intendedto generate profit.’

Therefore, this contention of OP in this regard is not well found.

It is further argued by counsel for theOP that there was a negligence on the part of the complainant and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any indemnification.The Commission has already discussed herein above the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC titled M/s Indraprastha Gas Ltd. Vs New India Insurance Co. Para 9 and 10 of that judgment have already been mentioned here in above and therefore this ground is also not applicable to the OP.

Further, Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that negligence was not at all excluded under the terms and conditions of the policy and even if that would have been then the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajeshwar Sharma and Ors. 2019 (2 SCC 671) has held in para 13 and 14 read as under:

13. The position of the common law with respect to the interpretation of exclusionary clauses in insurance policies is no different. In Cornish v. Accident Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court of Appeal emphasised the duty of the insurer to except their liability in clear and unambiguous terms: The Court of Appeal held that: (QBD p. 456)

“...in a case of real doubt, the policy ought to be construed most strongly against the insurers; they frame the policy and insert the exceptions. But this principle ought only to be applied for the purpose of removing a doubt, not for the purpose of creating a doubt, or magnifying an ambiguity, when the circumstances of the case raise no real difficulty."

14. According to The Law Relating to Accidental Insurance, insurers are exempted from any liability where the loss is attributable to an excepted cause which is inserted ‘ex abundanti cautela’ to make it quite clear to the assured that the policy is not intended to cover such losses. The position is elucidated below:

"The object of the exceptions is to define with greater precision the scope of the policy by making clear what is intended to be excluded and contrasting it with what is intended to be included.

Since exceptions are inserted in the policy mainly for the purpose of exempting the insurers from liability for a loss which, but for the exception. would be covered by the policy, they are construed against the insurers with the utmost strictness and it is the duty of the insurers to accept their liability in clear and unambiguous terms. The onus of proving that the loss falls within one of the exception lies upon the insurers, unless by proving the language of the exception the assured is expressly required to prove that. in the circumstances, the exception does not apply."

True spirit of this discussion is that where there is any exclusionary clause in an insurance policy, the burden lies on the insurer to establish that exclusion is attracted and any ambiguity must be in favour of the insured. Hence, this contention of OP is therefore also not well found.

42. Now, coming to the next contention of the OP that this commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the  present complaint as a complicated  question of law and facts are involved and therefore complaint case be dismissed.
43. The Commission has perused all the records. Although the  claim petition and reply thereof along with the surveyor report makes the present case voluminous, yet the simple query which is to be answered in this claim was that whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP  in rejecting the claim of the complainant based on the report of the surveyor, which has been conclusively relied upon by the  OP.  The Commission is of the opinion that just by  making the report  voluminous or taking vague objections, without any basis, the same would not make a complaint case or the facts of that case complicated. Raising objections w.r.t. non-joinder of necessary parties or not following the guidelines of NBCC etc. does make the complaint voluminous  but in any case it does not have anything on record that the evidence would be required at length to prove or disprove such facts. Every guidelines of any of the authority is based on written paper and is documented one.  There is nothing at all which cannot be looked into by this commission. On the basis of descripted facts, either in the form of policy or in the form of complaint or in the form of written statement or in the form of report of the surveyor, OP cannot be allowed to take such objections at rampant and then claim that the issue has become complicated one. No one can be allowed to make a simple issue voluminous and then to argue that facts have become complicated. The simple facts in this matter is that a fire has taken place in the premises of the  complainant which was duly informed as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Surveyor was appointed who has given his report and based on the same OP  has rejected the claim. No further evidence which has come on record is required and the basic aspect is only to appreciate such fact which can be done by the Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that issue involved in this matter  is complicated issue of facts. The matter w.r.t. to non-joinder of necessary parties has  also no force as even the complainant would have joined the financer as a party the Commission would have enquired as to what is the deficiency of the financer in a consumer complaint. The OP is trying to take such objection under CPA to so that he can argue that it is a complicated issue of facts. This contention of OP is not well found. In the  totality  of facts and circumstances of the case, the  Commission hereby orders that the OP was deficient in rejecting the claim of the  complainant and complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency on the part of OP in rejecting the  claim.       
44. The Commission therefore hereby orders as follows:   

• OP is directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.21,38,77,055/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of rejection of the claim i.e. 27.07.2020 till the date of actual realization of the payment.
• The Complainant has claimed the amount from the date of incidence of fire by arguing that OP has taken three years in repudiating the claim and has put the complainant in disadvantages situation.  The Commission is of the opinion that this prayer of the complainant cannot be appreciated as every claim has a natural life during which it has to be processed and considered. Therefore this request of the complainant to grant interest from the date of incidence is declined.   However, in this matter although considering the incident has happened on 25.09.2016 and the OP took around three years in rejecting the claim and it was rejected ultimately on 27.07.2020 therefore the interest is granted from the date of rejection of the claim.    
• OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on account of mental agony and loss.      
• In the fitness of facts and circumstances, OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant.   
• The Complainant has also demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of loss to the unit. No document in support of the contention has been filed on record and therefore this relief cannot be granted and is rejected. 

This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with by the OP then OP would pay an interest @ 12% on all above amounts to the complainant from the date of rejection of the claim till the date of actual realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 11.03.2024.