Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant M/S Devi Dass Gopal Krishan (A Unit of Puri Oil Mills Ltd), Gandhi Road, Moga Tehsil & District Moga, is engaged in the business of processing/manufacturing of mustard oil and cattle feed mustered cakes and do the trading thereof in order to earn their livelihood. That vide resolution dated: 09.12.2022 the Board of directors have authorized Mr. Ramesh Chander to file the present complaint to engage counsel, to sign complaint, give affidavit, evidence, suffer statement and do all acts in the prosecution of present complaint.

It is further averred that the complainant’s firm had been taking fidelity insurance policy from the Opposite Party since the year 2019 continuously. Averred that the Opposite Party company had agreed to indemnify the complainant Company upto Rs.12 lakhs each in case of any loss suffered by the complainant due to acts of fraud or dishonestly committed by any of the employees of the complainant’s firm covered under the ‘Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy’ bearing no.3611004620080000001 for the period w.e.f 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022. The employees of Complainant Company covered under the said insurance policy are (i) Naresh Kumar (ii) Raj Kumar (iii). Gagandeep Singh (iv) Vikrant Dhand (v) Mahesh Kumar and (vi) Ombir. Further averred that from the above named employees, one of an employee namely Gagandeep Singh s/o Balwant Singh of complainant' company was posted/appointed as sales representative in the complainant’s firm as on 01.09.2010. During his duty, the said employee collected money from various parties/customers of complainant in lieu of mustard oil and cattle feed sold to those parties by the complainant’s firm and did not deposit the said money in the office of complainant’s firm and misappropriated that amount to his own use. In this way said employee Gagandeep Singh made a fraud of Rs.27,25,676/-. But sum insured is of Rs.12,00,000/-. The list of parties/customers from whom said employee collected money is as under:-

          Further alleged that the list is limited only to the extent of sum insured otherwise fraud is of total Rs.27,25,676/- only. Thus, the said Gagandeep Singh, the employee of the company committed infidelity with the employer complainant company. When complainant’ company came to know of this infidelity, the complainant’s company gave intimation thereof to the Opposite Party on 16.10.2021. Then, the Opposite Party advised the complainant’ company to get the FIR registered against the said employee. Accordingly, the complainant company lodged a complaint to this effect and consequently FIR No.0067 dated: 06.04.2022 u/s 408 IPC, in Police Station City South, Moga was registered against said employee. Also the complainant’s company lodged a claim under the policy in question with the Opposite Party. It is alleged that the Opposite Party vide its letter dated: 08.08.2022 repudiated and declined the claim of complainant on flimsy and non maintainable grounds and reasons. It is further alleged that the reasons for repudiation of the claim of complainant as mentioned in the repudiation letter are against the facts, records, provisions of law and are based on imaginary assumptions. Averred that there is no system lapse in the company as alleged by Opposite Party. The system of updating the pending amounts with debtors is accurate. Further averred that there is no act of misrepresentation on the part of complainant as alleged in surveyor report. Averred that how, it is possible or unnatural that complainant’s company should not have pending amount with its customers, dealers, debtors at the time of issuing insurance policy, for which, the Opposite Party could have verified the accounts of the complainant’s company. Averred further that there is no alleged violation of conditions no.5,7 & 8 as stated in the repudiation letter dated 08.08.2022. Claimed that the complainant company did not continue to entrust Gagandeep Singh the said employee after having received the complaints in respect of his infidelity, whereas the complainant’s company made thorough investigation, when fraud was detected, the Opposite Party company was timely intimated on 16.10.2021. It is claimed by the complainant that the Opposite Party company on flimsy grounds have repudiated the claim of the complainant company. Further clarified that being a limited company, the accounts of the complainant company are regularly been maintained and audited annually by charted accountant. Hence, it cannot be alleged that accounts are not maintained properly. It is averred that the respondent company was to ascertain through their surveyor as to whether Gagandeep employee in question had collected the money from the dealers/ customers of the complainant company and did not deposit said money with the complainant’s company. Claimed further that this fact is established by the confession of said employee Gagandeep when said Gagandeep gave a banker cheque dated: 20.05.2022 for an amount of Rs.27,25,676/- equivalent to the total amount of misappropriation by him out of his account no. 607302010001699 drawn on Union Bank, Patti Branch District. Tarn Taran. The complainant’s company when presented the said cheque for encashment for clearing in its Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Main Bazar Moga Branch, said State Bank of India returned the said cheque without encashing the same with the return memo on the ground of ‘Funds Insufficient’ in the account of said employee. It is submitted that the insurance policy in question is not to insure the business loss, but the insurance policy in question is to cover the risk of financial loss caused due to the fraud by any of the employee insured under the policy in question. Further alleged that after going through the file of the insurance company, obtained through RTI complainant company noticed that the insurance company had taken the legal opinion on 16.06.2022, whereas the surveyor gave its report on 12.07.0222. So, the action of the insurance company to take legal opinion before the surveyor report is clear reflection of the prejudiced mind of the insurance company. This fact reveals the malafide intention of the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant in question has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to make the payment of claim amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant’s company alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim  till realization.

b)      To pay an amount of R.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and for deficiency in service.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party filed written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that This Commission has got no jurisdictions to try and decide the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The complainant has lodged the claim in respect of the loss due to infidelity of Sh.Gagandeep Singh and immediately on receipt of the claim it was duly registered, entertained and processed. Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and investigation of the matter, who personally visited at the premises of the complainant, collected documents, clicked photopgraphs, recorded statements of the witnesses and inspected the account books and thereafter he submitted his survey and investigation report dated 12.07.2022 alongwith its annexures and supporting documents. Mr.Deepak Malhotra Surveyor has given following observation and conclusion in his report:-

1.       The insured was not maintaining an efficient system where the stock outward is tallied with payments received against it on a regular basis.

          2.       The cash receipts were not being issued to the parties by Mr.Gagandeep and cash was received from parties only through Mr.Gagandeep. Parties did not deposit any payment into company account directly and the company was not looking into accounts. The insured also in his mail replied to us that all cash receipts are in the custody of Mr.Gagandeep which is also a serious lapse. As per accounting procedures, all the copies of cash receipts should be kept at head office and the company not taking appropriate actions to follow the same is an adverse accounting practice.

3.       As per my verifications, the insured claimed pending amounts for the last three years and submitted the party’s details in respect of whom they claimed pending amount. I prepared an annexure (as above) and as per this, in the year ending 31.03.2019 the debtor amount is for Rs.1,86,304/- in the next year 31.03.2020 these debtors amounts came for Rs.25,49,813/- which is exorbitant and there should have been some action from company side to check such sudden spike in the debt amount.

4.       As per annexure (as above), I found some debtors for the year, 2016, 2017 are missing from the debtor list of 31.03.2019 and onwards for the audited balance sheets.

5.       During my investigation visits to the parties, one of the parties even informed me that they did not receive any material for an invoice against which their firm name has been misused.

6.       We did not find any system maintained by the insured for updating the pending amount with the debtors which also as major lapse because if a proper scrutiny system had been followed by the insured from the year, 2016, this loss due to fraud by the employee could have been avoided.

7.       At the time of taking insurance policy, there were already pending amounts from the debtors for which Mr.Gagandeep Singh was responsible, but this material fact was not disclosed to the insurance company which is an act of concealment.

          It is claimed that after receipt of the Survey & Investigation Report dated 12.07.2022 alongwith documents, the claim file of the complainant was duly scrutinized by the competent authority of the Opposite Party and it was found that the claim of the complainant is not payable and the calm was repudiated vide registered letter dated 08.08.2022. Further averred that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions no.5, 7 & 8 of the policy in question. As such, the claim of the complainant is not payable and complainant is not entitled for any relief. Further averred that the insurance policy is a contract between insured and insurer and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant’s firm has obtained Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy no.36110046200800000001 valid w.e.f 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 and the said policy was issued alongwith terms and conditions of the policy. All the terms and conditions of the said policy are binding between the parties. The complainant has violated the above said terms and conditions no.5,7 & 8 of the policy. As such, the claim of the complainant is not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy same has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 08.08.2022. Claimed further that the present complaint is not maintainable since complicated question of law and facts are involved which require elaborated evidence both oral and documentary and as such it is only civil court of competent jurisdiction which can try and decide the present complaint. The complaint cannot be decided by this Commission in summary manner. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint since the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and had concealed the material facts from this Commission and as such he is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Commission. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Party and denied all the objections raised by Opposite Party in its written reply.

4.       In order to prove his case, Director of the complainant’s firm tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and his additional affidavit Ex.C17.

5.       To rebut the evidence of complainant Opposite Party tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt.Sunita Mahajan, Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ex.OP1/A  alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP37 and affidavit of Sh.Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP38.  

6.       We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       It is admitted that complainant’s company availed the ‘Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy’ bearing no.3611004620080000001 for the period w.e.f 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 covering the loss suffered by the complainant’ company due to acts of fraud or infidelity committed by employees of the complainant’s firm (i) Naresh Kumar (ii) Raj Kumar (iii). Gagandeep Singh (iv) Vikrant Dhand (v) Mahesh Kumar and (vi) Ombir who are covered under the policy in question. Admittedly, the complainant’ company has been availing the policy in question from the Opposite Party since the year 2019 continuously. It is also proved on record that during the policy coverage the claim for an amount of Rs.12 lakhs was raised by the complainant’ company with the Opposite Party on account of misappropriation of funds committed by one of the employee of the complainant’ company namely Gagandeep Singh, who is covered under the policy in question. Further it is well proved on record that the said employee namely Gagandeep Singh s/o Balwant Singh (covered under the policy in question) of complainant’s company was posted/appointed as sales representative in the complainant’s firm who used to collect money from various parties/customers of complainant’s company in lieu of mustard oil and cattle feed sold to those parties by the complainant’s firm, failed to deposit the whole money collected from the parties in the office of complainant’s firm and in this way said employee Gagandeep Singh committed infidelity for an amount of Rs.27,25,676/-. When complainant’ company came to know about the infidelity of the said employee, the company immediately gave intimation thereof to the Opposite Party on 16.10.2021. Also the matter was duly reported to the police on 01.12.2021. Then on the advise of the Opposite Party, the complainant’ company get the FIR registered against the said employee. Accordingly, the complainant company got registered an FIR No.0067 dated: 06.04.2022 u/s 408 IPC, in Police Station City South, Moga. The complainant’s company duly raised the claim under the policy in question for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- i.e. sum insured under the policy. However, Opposite Party vide its letter dated: 08.08.2022 repudiated the claim of complainant company, which is now been challenged under the present complaint claiming it to be wrong and illegal.  

8.       Ld. counsel of the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld. counsel for the complainant stating that on receipt of the claim lodged by the complainant’s company in respect of the loss due to infidelity committed by Sh.Gagandeep Singh, immediately it was duly registered, entertained and processed. Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and investigation of the matter, who personally visited at the premises of the complainant company, collected documents, clicked photopgraphs, recorded statements of the witnesses and inspected the account books and thereafter he submitted his survey report and investigation report dated 12.07.2022 by giving the following observations:-

1.       The insured was not maintaining an efficient system where the stock outward is tallied with payments received against is on a regular basis.

2.       The cash receipts were not being issued to the parties by Mr.Gagandeep and cash was received from parties only through Mr.Gagandeep. Parties did not deposit any payment into company account directly and the company was not looking into accounts. The insured also in his mail replied to us that all cash receipts are in the custody of Mr.Gagandeep which is also a serious lapse. As per accounting procedures, all the copies of cash receipts should be kept at head office and the company not taking appropriate actions to follow the same is an adverse accounting practice.

3.       As per my verifications, the insured claimed pending amounts for the last three years and submitted the party’s details in respect of whom they claimed pending amount. I prepared an annexure (as above) and as per this, in the year ending 31.03.2019 the debtor amount is for Rs.1,86,304/- in the next year 31.03.2020 these debtors amounts came for Rs.25,49,813/- which is exorbitant and there should have been some action from company side to check such sudden spike in the debt amount.

4.       As per annexure (as above), I found some debtors for the year, 2016, 2017 are missing from the debtor list of 31.03.2019 and onwards for the audited balance sheets.

5.       During my investigation visits to the parties, one of the parties even informed me that they did not receive any material for an invoice against which their firm name has been misused.

6.       We did not find any system maintained by the insured for updating the pending amount with the debtors which also as major lapse because if a proper scrutiny system had been followed by the insured from the year, 2016, this loss due to fraud by the employee could have been avoided.

7.       At the time of taking insurance policy, there were already pending amounts from the debtors for which Mr.Gagandeep Singh was responsible, but this material fact was not disclosed to the insurance company which is an act of concealment.

          Further submitted that after receipt of the Survey & Investigation Report dated 12.07.2022 alongwith documents, the claim file of the complainant was duly scrutinized by the competent authority of the Opposite Party and found that the claim of the complainant is not payable and the calm was repudiated vide registered letter dated 08.08.2022. The contents of repudiation letter are reproduced as under:-

This is with reference to the claim in respect of the loss due to infidelity of Mr.Gagandeep Singh, Immediately on receipt of the claim it was duly registered. Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and investigation of the matter. Mr.Deepak Malhotra submitted his survey report alongwith its annexures and supporting documents on dated 12.07.2022. After going through the said survey cum investigation report and documents, the competent authority of the company has found that your claim is not maintainable on the following grounds:-

1.       The Surveyor Mr.Deepak Malhotra during his survey and investigation found that there are many system lapses going on in the company which itself provided easy opportunity to Mr.Gagandeep and enabled him to defraud the company of lakhs of rupees.

You were not maintaining an efficient accounting system where the stock outward is tallied with payments received against is on a regular basis.

2.       There as major lapses on your part as you did not maintain any system for updating the pending amount with the debtors. If an efficient accounting system had been followed by you from the year 2016, this loss due to fraud by the employee could have been avoided.

3.       You have not provided all the records asked for by the surveyor. 4.   That at the time of taking insurance policy, there were already pending amounts from the debtors for which Mr.Gagandeep was responsible, but this material fact was not disclosed by you to our company which is an act of misrepresentation/concealment on your part.

5.       Your were continuously entrusting the money to your said employee even after having knowledge of the fact bearing on the honesty of the said employee which is also violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

Thus you have violated condition no.5, 7 & 8 of the policy which reads as follows:-

Condition No.5

Unless the Company be advised and its written approval be obtained, the Company shall not be liable hereunder in the event of any change in the nature of the business of the insured or in the duties and conditions of service of the employee or if remuneration of the employee be reduced or its basis altered or if the precautions stated by the Insured with regard to accounting be not duly followed or if the Insured shall continue to entrust the employee with money or goods after having knowledge of any material fact bearing on the honesty of the employee.

Condition No.7

If required by the Company, the agent of the Insured shall in case of any loss to the Insured be permitted at all reasonable times to examine into the circumstances of such loss and the Insured shall on being required so to do by receipts, the Company produces all books of accounts, documents relating to or containing entries relating to the loss in his possession and furnish copies of extracts from such of them as may be required by the Company so far as they relate to such claims or will in any way enable the Company to ascertain the correctness thereof or the liability of the Company under this policy.

Condition No.8

The policy shall be null and void in the event of misrepresentation, misdecription or nondisclosure in any material particular or if a claim be fraudulent means devices be used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy.

As such, in view of all the above said reasons and violation of condition no.5, 7 & 8 of the policy, your claim is not maintainable/payable and same stands repudiated, which please note.

9.       Now, the question for determination is that whether the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant company or not? We have meticulously gone through the record, considered all the rival contentions of the parties alongwith written submissions which reveals that the genuine claim of the complainant company has wrongly been repudiated by the Opposite Party which further unveils the high headedness and arbitrary functioning of the Opposite Party/Insurance Company in question.

10.     It has been observed that in order to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant’ company, Opposite Party company without waiting for the report of their surveyor and loss assessor duly appointed to verify the claim in question, beforehand sought a tailor made legal opinion of Dharampal Singh Anand, Advocate, Patiala; To our utter surprise the said legal opinion as given by the Dharampal Singh Anand, Advocate Patiala is based upon the report of surveyor and investigator which in fact was prepared on 12.07.2022, whereas the legal opinion for the repudiation of the claim was given on 16.06.2022 i.e. much much prior to the report submitted by surveyor/investigator.

The factum above highlights that how the insurance companies left no stone unturned to repudiate the genuine claims filed under the policies issued by them. Also it gives strength to the general belief that the insurance companies are inclined only to fetch heafty premiums in order to enrich their own coffers with fraudulent intention not to pay the genuine claims, when filed. In the present case also, the Opposite Party insurance company has wrongly shifted all the burden on the shoulders of the complainant company to bear the loss occurred due to the infidelity committed by its employee qua whom the policy in question was obtained by the complainant company. It is well proved on record that one of an employee of the complainant’ company namely Gagandeep Singh duly covered under the policy in question committed infidelity with the company as he collected money from various parties/customers of complainant’s company in lieu of mustard oil and cattle feed sold to the parties by the complainant’ company and did not deposit the said money in the office of complainant’s company. It is further well proved on record that due intimation was given to Opposite Party in time on 16.10.2021 and police complaint was submitted on 01.12.2021 (Ex.OP10) and FIR was got registered on 06.04.2022 (Ex.OP11) on the basis of application moved to the higher authority i.e. SSP of the District. Further the claim raised for making good the loss occurred due to the infidelity of the concerned employee has been repudiated by Opposite Party company.

11.     In the above back drop we are now diverting towards the grounds taken in the repudiation letter based upon the Surveyor and Investigator report. In the repudiation letter (Ex.OP1) the Opposite Party inter alia has stated that due to system lapses going on in the company qua maintenance of the accounting system, provided opportunity to the employee in question i.e. Gagandeep Singh to defraud the company. Also claimed that the company is not following efficient accounting system since the year 2016. It has also been mentioned that there were already pending amounts with the debtors while taking the insurance policy for which Mr.Gagandeep was responsible. Further it has been mentioned in the repudiation letter that the company in question continued entrusting the money to the employee in question even after having the knowledge of the fact bearing on the honesty of the said employee. Further the repudiation is also based on the alleged violation of condition no.5,7 & 8 of the policy in question which broadly pertains to the entrustment to the employee even after knowledge of material facts bearing on the honesty of the employee; for not providing the required documents and misrepresentation, misdescription and not disclosing material facts.

12.     In our concerted opinion grounds so taken in the repudiation letter are unjust and unreasonable for the reasons recorded hereinafter. So far as the ground taken in the repudiation letter qua not having the proper collection system of the complainant’s company, it is not the case of the Opposite Party-Insurance Company that while issuing the policy in its initial year 2019, the thorough inspection/verification was done and the collection system of the complainant’s company was upto date and it is only after having obtained the policy in question, the complainant’s company start adopting callous approach in regards to the collection system. Also the Opposite Party cannot be allowed to take this plea at this juncture as this factum should have been well verified by the Opposite Party Insurance Company at the time of issuing of the policy in question. When once the insurance company has waived off its right to verify and investigate at the first juncture, then they could not be given liberty to take the benefit of their own wrong. For such opinion, we are well guided by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8249 of 2022 titled as M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Wherein it is held that:-

Once it is proved that there is a deficiency in service and that respondent No. 1 knowingly entered into a contract, notwithstanding the exclusion clause, the consequence would flow out of it. We have already discussed the scope and ambit of the provisions under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Even as per the common law principle of acquiescence and estoppel, respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong, if any. It is a conscious waiver of the exclusion clause by respondent No. 1.

13.     It is also admitted and proved fact that the policy which was initially been issued in the year, 2019 was renewed regularly without any break and lately the policy was renewed for the period 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 and claim has been raised in the 3^rd year of the policy. Provenly the Opposite Party company had not taken any cojules for the intermittent inspection of the records of the company which as per the policy condition, they were entitled to enquire or even not at the time of renewing the policy for consecutive years. This means that again they waived of their right to inspect and thus now they cannot wriggle out from the liability undertaken to indemnify the complainant’s company for infidelity committed by any of the employee of the complainant’s company covered under the policy in question.

14.     The another ground of repudiation taken is qua the alleged entrustment to the defaulting employee to collect the money claiming that the company continued entrusting the said employee even after having knowledge of the fact bearing on the honesty of the said employee to collect the money on behalf of the company. This ground of repudiation is also unsustainable in the eyes of law as there is no proof qua the same that after having been aware of the infidelity/fraud committed by the employee concerned, the complainant company continued availing his services in order to collect the money from the parties. There is no entry been highlighted in this regard even in the surveyor’s report placed on record by the Opposite Party.

It is also the ground for repudiation that the debts/amount recoverable from the parties were pending since the year, 2016. The Opposite Party again is not allowed to take liberty to take this plea at this stage when they have already issued the policy in question in the year, 2019 and then further renewed the same time to time. Had any inquiry or verification been done by the Opposite Party Insurance Company at the time of issuing the policy in question in the year, 2019, it would have definitely been noticed at that time. In the absence of any proof an adverse injection is being drawn that before issuing the policy in question no verification has been done by the Opposite Party.

15.     Further no violation of the terms and conditions no.5, 6 & 7 have also been found on record as alleged by the Opposite Party company. The Opposite Party company has not placed on record any document establishing the alleged misrepresentation, misdescription and non disclosure of material facts by the complainant’s company. The Opposite Party has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence highlighting or objecting that the complainant’s company has not suffered loss on account of infidelity committed by the employee in question during the coverage period. Further the fact that the said employee Gagandeep has committed alleged fraud of Rs.27,25,676/- is being proved vide cheque dated 20.05.2022 issued by the employee in question i.e. Gagandeep and also has been recorded in FIR dated 06.04.2022 Ex.OP11.

14.     From the discussion above, now it is patently clear that the claim of the complainant company has wrongly and illegally been repudiated and complainant’s company is duly entitled for the claimed amount which as per the policy is Rs.12,00,000/-. It is apt to mention that Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly appointed by Opposite Party company vide its report Ex.OP6 after thorough verification assessed the loss beyond the sum insured and vide its report, he also suggested the Opposite Party to settle the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per Surveyor report, complainant’ company in question suffered a loss of Rs.21,33,918/- and rightly a claim upto the insured amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has been raised.

15.     From the reasons recorded above, we reiterate that the Opposite Party illegally and unjustifiably repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant company. By repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant company, Opposite Party has not only rendered deficient service but has also resorted to unfair trade practice, for which, complainant’ company is entitled to be compensated besides their liability to pay the claim under the policy. Hence, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party to pay the sum insured of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till its actual realization. Further Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for rendering deficient services coupled with unfair trade practice and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant company. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they are further burdened with Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant company. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission