1.      Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      M/s Rolex Hosiery Private Limited has filed above complainant for directing the opposite party to pay (a) Rs.11552849/- as insurance claim; (b) Rs.4332319/- as interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 01.07.2012 till 31.07.2014  and pendent lite/future interest at the same rate; (c) Rs.5687648/- as damages for monetary loss, harassment and rent paid to the landlord; (d) litigation costs; and (e) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the fact of the case.

3.      The complainant stated as follows:-

(a) M/s Rolex Hosiery Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting hosiery goods and has the facility of manufacturing and storage of goods at various locations. The opposite party is a public sector insurance corporation. The complainant has been purchasing Standard Fire and Special Perils policies from the opposite party and renewing them from time to time. The complainant purchased Standard Fire and Special Perils Floaters Policy No.351804/11/11/3300000378 covering the stocks at 3 locations, namely, (i) 7, IDC Mehrauli, Road, Gurgaon; (ii)101, IDC, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon; and (iii) Village Begumpur, Gurgaon for the period of 05.01.2012 to 04.01.2013. The location of village Begumpur, Gurgaon comprises of the land and building at khasra Nos.13/3, 13/3/1 and 13/3/2. There is no endorsement on the policy document about change of schedule of properties nor opposite party has intimated the complainant about any change of schedule as there was no need to do so. The complainant is owner of Khasra No.13/3 and took adjoining premises on rent, which is also partly formed part of khasra No.13/3 and the unit was run as a single unit. The bankers of the complainant has been inspecting its stocks from time to time and considering the entire premises as a single unit. In the record of the complainant the entire premises is one unit known as Rolex Hosiery Pvt. Ltd., village Begumpur, Gurgaon. There has been no misrepresentation, mis-description or non-disclosure of particulars by the complainant while taking the policy.

(b)     On 25.04.2012 a fire broke out due to electric short circuit in the unit of the complainant situated at village Begumpur, Gurgaon. The complainant intimated the opposite party about the incident of fire on 26.04.2012 with the request to depute a surveyor and the location was intimated as village Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon. The fire was so extensive that by the time it could be controlled, stock of yarn and plastic hangers stored therein were totally gutted apart from the office cabin and office equipment. The opposite party appointed M/s Atul Kapur & Co., New Delhi as the surveyor on 26.04.2012. The surveyor inspected the fire affected unit and recorded the statements of the security guard and the storekeeper on 27.04.2012. The fire brigade as well as the police authorities recorded the cause of fire as electric short circuit. The complainant supplied the fire report, police report and newspaper publications to the surveyor. The complainant vide letter dated 28.04.2012 also supplied the documents sought by the surveyor and submitted a claim of Rs.11552849/- (Rs.10709822/- for damaged yarn and Rs.843027/- for damaged plastic hangers). The surveyor raised several queries from time to time which were also replied by the complainant. On 12.05.2012, the complainant sought permission of the surveyor to remove malba from the site. The surveyor made one of the queries that the complainant had mentioned the address of the premises as 13/3 Begumpur, Gurgaon in letter dated 09.01.2012.

(c)     Unfortunately another incident of fire occurred on 06.06.2012 in the basement of the premises 13/3 Begumpur, Gurgaon of the complainant. The opposite party appointed M/s Adarsh Associates Insurance Surveyor, New Delhi as surveyor on 08.06.2012. The complainant filed a separate claim for the loss suffered in second fire incident.

(d) The opposite party unreasonably delayed in processing the claim. The complainant expressed its anguish vide letter dated 22.03.2013 due to unreasonable delay but there was no reply from the OP. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with the grievance cell of the OP on 03.05.2013 and also sent a letter dated 04.05.2013 to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the OP but of no result. M/s Atul Kumar & Co., submitted final survey report dated 14.09.2013 assessing the loss to Rs.8625744/- but observed that the plot where fire took place was overlapping some part of plot No.13/2 and some part of plot No.13/3 and the Insurer has to take decision that the fire affected location is covered under the policy. On receipt of the survey report of M/s Atul Kumar & Co., the complainant sent a letter dated 15.10.2013 explaining that the entire area comprising of khasra No.13/3 was owned by the complainant. The adjoining area was taken on rent also partly fell in khasra No.13/3 and the entire premises being used by the complainant was known as Rolex Hosiery Pvt. Ltd., village Begumpur, Khatola. The complainant has no separate godown anywhere else and the godown was part of the unit at Begumpur Khatola, Gurgaon. Earlier also vide letter dated 12.01.2013 the complainant clarified the doubts of the opposite party regarding the revenue records pertaining to the ownership of the land in question. The address mentioned in the policy was village Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon and there was no subsequent change in the policy nor was any endorsement there in the policy regarding change of address.

(e)     The complainant vide letters dated 14.01.2014 and 15.01.2014 requested the opposite party to expedite the claim. On 19.02.2014 the opposite party sent a pre-repudiation letter stating that the fire affected unit was khasra No.13/2 and not 13/3 and the claim was liable to be repudiated. The opposite party at its own has illegally bifurcated the single unit into two units. The complainant protested the pre-repudiation letter vide letter dated 09.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant did not receive any communication from the OP. Due to fire on 25.04.2012, there was extensive damage to the property. The complainant held the rented premises and paid rent of more than Rs.26/- lacs to the landlord as the surveyor was continuously seeking information regarding fire incident and did not permit the complainant to remove the malba from the site. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 and also followed up the matter with the OP. The OP vide letter dated 18.07.2014 repudiated the claim arbitrarily and illegally. Aggrieved by repudiation of insurance claim, the complainant filed above complaint on 25.09.2014.

4.      The opposite party filed written version and contested by the complaint, stating that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the fire affected premises was 13/2, village Begampur, Gurgaon, which is not covered under the policy. The complainant is carrying on business in the premises at 13/3, Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon, which was purchased by it in the year 1999. In July, 2010, the complainant extended its operations in a separate location at 13/2, Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon, which has a separate entry and exit gate. The complainant never took insurance cover for the premises at 13/2, Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon. The complainant has supressed this material fact in complaint and tried to mislead this Commission. The complainant had taken following policies from the OP: -

NB: Immediately after issue of this Policy No.378, the insured wrote a letter dated 09.01.2012 (before loss) to the insurer whereby they clarified that the location No. 33) Vill: Begampur, Gurgaon should be read as 13/3, Begumpur Khatola, Gurgaon.

The complainant has sent a letter dated 09.01.2012 seeking following amendments in the policy in question: -

Industry                         Address                        Amount insured

          Stock in trade               1 IDC, Gurgaon           Rs.6 crore

          Stock in trade               101, IDC, Gurgaon      Rs.15 lakh

          Stock in trade               13/3, Begampur,          Rs.6 crore

                                                Gurgaon                      

In the said letter the complainant has specifically mentioned the address as 13/3, Begampur, Gurgaon and the incident of fire has taken place at 13/2, Begampur, Gurgaon which was not covered under the policy. 

          On receipt of intimation of fire on 26.04.2012, the opposite party immediately appointed M/s Atul Kumar & Co. as surveyor for assessment of loss. The surveyor submitted the final survey report on 14.09.2013 assessing the loss at Rs.8625744/- observing that the cause of loss was accidental and covered under the policy. However, the surveyor also observed that the insured’s location as per all insurance policies was 13/3, Begampur Khatola, Gurgaon and the loss has taken place at 13/2, Begampur Khatola, Gurgaon. Although the complainant claimed that some part of plot No.13/2 is also included in 13/3 and form part of the one unit wherein the complainant is running the business, but the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show such demarcation. The complainant has produced the copy of the lease deed wherein address of the affected premises (13/2) is not mentioned although it is mentioned that the land comprises of khasra Nos.13/2/2/2 and 3/1/1. As the fire affected area is not covered in the policies as such no claim was payable. The OP also raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as the services of the OP were availed for commercial purpose. Further the complaint involves complicated questions of fact which requires elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence which is not permissible in the summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the appropriate forum to adjudicate the case is a Civil Court. 

5.      The Complainant filed Rejoinder Reply, Affidavit of Evidence of D.L. Arora (General Manager). The opposite party filed Affidavit of Evidence of A.S.N. Murthy (Manager) and Affidavit of Evidence of Atul Kapur (Surveyor). Both the parties have also filed written arguments.

6.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. At the time of fire incident dated 25.04.2012, three insurance policies were effective, which were as follows:-

7.      The complainant has sent a letter dated 09.01.2012 seeking following amendments in the policy in question: -

Industry                         Address                        Amount insured

          Stock in trade               7 IDC, Gurgaon           Rs.6 crore

          Stock in trade               101, IDC, Gurgaon      Rs.15 lakh

          Stock in trade               13/3, Begampur,          Rs.6 crore

                                                Gurgaon                      

8.      The surveyor in the final survey report has prepared a sketch map of the fire affected location i.e. plot No.13/2 as well as location of the premises 13/3 Begampur Gurgaon which is owned by the complainant. So far as fire affected premises is concerned as per complainant it has been taken on lease on 26.08.2010 from its owner, namely, N.K. Jain. It has been mentioned that N. K. Jain was owner in possession of the land comprises in kila No.13/2/2/2 (1.8), 3/1/1 (1.7) situated in revenue state of Begampur Khatola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It is further mentioned that the total area of the aforesaid land was 3000 sq. meters. while built up area was about 22000 sq. ft. The construction consists of two towers. One tower is situated in front of side of the property and consists of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor and other tower consists of a double height single storeyed shed on the rear side. It is single storey shed and the rear shed was allotted to the complainant. A perusal of the sketch map shows that the building of the complainant at plot No.13/3 had a separate entry and exit gate. The said single story shed is situated on rear side of the four storeyed building, therefore, the argument of the complainant that both the units is known as a single unit of M/s Rolex Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to be accepted. Although in the letter dated 09.01.2012 the complainant has disclosed the same address with specification of location in policy No.378 but in this letter also description of location has been given as 13/3, Begampur, Gurgaon while originally in the insurance policy the location has been mentioned as Village Begampur, Gurgaon. In other two policies, the location has been mentioned as 13/3, Begampur, Gurgaon, therefore, at no point of time the location at 13/2 was disclosed to the insurer or it was made part of the insurance policies. Since the fire affected location was not covered in the insurance policy, therefore, the opposite party has not committed any error in repudiating the claim.

9.      The complaint has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.