National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Considers Insurance Claim Repudiation Case — Hearing Concluded, Order Reserved. Insurer repudiated fire claim alleging violation of policy conditions and inconsistencies in insured's statements.

Tribunals: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The complaint was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing besan and chana dal. The firm had obtained a Standard Fire Policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd. covering its factory building, plant, machinery, and stocks, with a sum assured of Rs. 5 crores (Rs. 1.5 crores for stocks). The policy was effective from 16.09.2011 to 15.09.2012. On the night of 26.10.2011, a fire broke out inside the factory, apparently due to firecrackers during Diwali. The complainant claimed that 2470 quintals of raw grams and 3000 quintals of churi were stored and destroyed. The fire brigade was called, but the fire continued for days. The complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 1,40,20,455 with the insurer on 20.12.2011. The insurer appointed a surveyor (S. Soni & Co.) and an investigator (Royal Associates). Based on their reports, the claim was repudiated on 06.08.2012. The repudiation cited violation of policy conditions 1, 6, and 8; discrepancies in the insured's statements regarding the cause and timing of fire; lack of cooperation; inability to provide employee records and electricity bills; test results suggesting ash contained excess dust; and observations that the godown was not fully utilized and that stock may not have been present. The complainant then approached the NCDRC seeking relief. The Commission heard arguments from both sides. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final order or reasoning of the Commission.

Headnote

A) Insurance Law - Fire Insurance - Standard Fire Policy - Claim Repudiation - The insurer repudiated the claim for fire loss alleging violation of policy conditions 1, 6, and 8, discrepancies in the insured's statements regarding the cause and timing of fire, absence of documentary evidence for factory operations and stock, and adverse findings in the surveyor and investigator reports. The matter was heard by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (Not mentioned)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurer was justified under the Standard Fire Policy.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • breach of policy conditions
  • repudiation of claim
  • fire insurance
  • surveyor report
  • investigator report
  • inconsistencies in insured's statements
  • cause of fire doubtful
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 56

Consumer Case No. 338 of 2013

2025-09-08

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi, President; Hon'ble Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, Member

For Complainant: Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyaz, Mr. Kakshya Raj Singh; For Opposite Parties: Mr. JPN Shahi, Mr. Divyansh Kumar

M/s Ganga Ram Industries, Through its Partner Shri Gulbahar Ali

1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Chairman/Managing Director, HO: Mumbai, Maharashtra. 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office (370701), Delhi Road, Near Maharaja Place, Saharanpur-247001 (UP).

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Insurance claim repudiation dispute under the Consumer Protection Act

Remedy Sought

Compensation of Rs. 1,40,20,455 for fire loss under the insurance policy

Filing Reason

The insurer repudiated the claim on grounds of violation of policy conditions, inconsistencies in the insured's statements, and adverse findings in surveyor and investigator reports.

Issues

Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurer was justified under the Standard Fire Policy.

Judgment Excerpts

Cause of fire (due to crackers) seems to be not genuine, because Channa is not highly inflammable. Stock of channa was not stored in godown at the time of fire. There is clear violation of condition number 1,6 & 8 of the insurance Company policy... When ashes (collected from godown) of burnt goods was tested at Delhi Test House it was found that there was a lot of dust available in that ash.

Procedural History

Complainant filed Consumer Case No. 338 of 2013 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after the insurer repudiated the fire claim.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Considers Insurance Claim Repudiation Case — Hearing Concluded, Order Reserved. Insurer repudiated fire claim alleging violation of policy conditions and inconsistencies in insured's statements.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Ex-Parte Order of Dock Labour Board for Violation of Natural Justice — Recovery of Arrears of Wages Set Aside. The Board's order directing deposit of Rs.75,48,467.25 was passed without hearing the petitioner and without co...