1. This is the complaint filed by Patiala Lace House through its proprietor Sameer Kumar Chhabra (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) against the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as OPs).

2. Brief Facts of the complaint are that Complainant is the Proprietor of the Patiala Lace House (A shop taken on rent) situated at One Way Traffic Road, Mansa and is dealing in Marriage Items etc. to earn his livelihood. He had purchased a Shopkeepers Insurance Policy from The OPs at Maur, Bathinda to secure his shop items against the premium of Rs. 11,703/-. A Policy No. 36061148170600000063 dated 17/09/2017 providing the insurance coverage of Rs. 60 lakh for the Stock in Trade and Rs. 10 lakh for FFF (Furniture, Fixture and Fittings) was issued to the Complainant. The policy was valid from 17-09-2017 to 16-09-2018. It is pleaded that unfortunately, on the night of 08-06-2018 at about 9:30 PM, due to an electric short circuit, a fire broke out in the above mentioned shop. Fire department was informed which sent the fire brigade team within a short period of time but the fire was so furious that it could not be controlled till the next morning. SDM Mansa and Tehsildar Mansa also remained present at the spot for the whole night and all the neighbours tried their best to extinguish the fire. It is pleaded that the officers of the insurance company were also informed within time. Further, it is pleaded that on the next day of the incident i.e. 09-06-2018, Surveyor of the OPs, Sh. Parmod Mittal, as per the directions of the Regional Office, Ludhiana visited the spot and conducted the survey of the damages occurred to the Stock & FFF due to the alleged fire. Surveyor deeply verified the physical loss occurred to the furniture, fixture, fittings and items of stock such as Lace, Gota, Ribbon, Suhag Chura, Sehra etc. The survey was conducted by the Surveyor independently because the proprietor of the shop at that point of time was in the hospital due to the shock of the fire incident and losses arose in consequence thereof. The Surveyor vide his final report dated 12.06.2018 assessed that Net Loss occurred to the Complainant was of Rs. 55,35,182/- and he recommended the Insurance claim of Rs. 52,58,423/-. Thereafter, on 28.09.2018 (Ex. C-2) OPs issued a letter to the Complainant and said that claim amount is beyond their financial limits and requested the Complainant to approve the claim amount of Rs. 48,94,149/- against his insurance policy. Complainant has said that he had approved this claim amount. Further, the complainant has pleaded that due to the fire some cracks had developed in the walls and roof of the shop and he had agreed to provide Rs. 30,000/- to the Landlord for repairing his shop. But when the son of the Landlord came to know that insurance claim has been approved by the insurance company, he started demanding Rs. 5 lakh of the claim amount and threatened the Complainant that if he would not provide the demanded amount then he, being the owner, would make a complaint to the insurance company against his claim. When the complainant denied to accept his demands, the Landlord of the shop (i.e. Surjit Kaur) on 29.09.2018 wrote a letter to the insurance company and raised certain objections against the claim of the Complainant and on the basis of that complaint OPs deputed another Investigator (i.e. Royal Associates, Kurukshetra, Haryana) to investigate the claim of the Complainant. Royal Associates submitted the report that the fire was put on intentionally after removing the new goods from the shop and the OPs, on the basis of this report vide letter dated 02.01.2019 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay insurance claim of Rs. 60,00,000/- alongwith interest upto date, besides Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as costs.

3. Upon Notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the Complaint by filing a written reply. OP raised legal objections on the ground of Locus Standi, Intricate Questions of Law and Facts, Concealment of Material Facts by the Complainant, Complainant is not a Consumer, Maintainability etc. Further they pleaded that after the report of their Surveyor, a written Complaint dated 29.09.2018 (Ex. OP-4) was received by them from one Surjit Kaur who was the Landlord/Owner of the shop given on rent to the Complainant where the alleged fire occurred. In this Complaint, Surjit Kaur had mentioned that the shop rented to Complainant had not caught fire naturally but the Complainant in order to earn insurance amount from the company had knowingly & deliberately set these shops on fire. Further, Surjit Kaur, through this letter requested the Insurance Company not to accept the claim of the Complainant and prayed for a fresh thorough probe into the matter. On the basis of this Complaint, the OPs had deputed Investigator i.e. M/s Royal Associates, Kurukshetra, Haryana for making a fresh investigation into the claim of the Complainant. This Investigator submitted his report on 29.10.2018 wherein he mentioned that the normal working hours of the shop were 9:00 AM to 8:30 PM and workers at the shop used to open and close it but on the date of incident Complainant freed all of his workers by 8:00 PM and himself locked down the shop at 9:00 PM and at about 9:10 PM neighbours saw the smoke coming out of the shop; that upon getting the information of the fire in his shop the Complainant from the mid-way to his house returned to the incident site at around 9:40 PM and when he was asked to open up the shop, he replied that he forgot to bring the keys and the neighbours had to broke the locks to open the shop; that as per the statement of the neighbours before the alleged occurrence the Complainant had removed the most of the new stock from the shop in 4-5 Tata Ace Vehicles and only unusable/obsolete stock was lying in the shop on the day of occurrence of the incident; that Gurpreet Singh S/o Gurmail Singh who was working as Accountant-cum-Manager had given a statement that stocks in the shop were 6 to 7 years old; that all the neighbours had stated that it was not an accidental fire or fire due to a short circuit; that Mr. Balkar Singh (Son of the Landlord Surjit Kaur) had also given a statement on Affidavit that fire was put on intentionally by the Complainant Sameer Chhabra; that the complainant had not placed on file any document to prove that the alleged fire took place due to short circuit as alleged. On the basis of this investigation report the OPs vide letter dated 02.01.2019 (Ex. OP - 9) repudiated the claim of the Complainant by stating the reason that the fire had been put on intentionally after removing the fresh and new stocks.

4. On merits, the OPs have reiterated their version as taken in the legal objections as detailed above and denying all other allegations of the Complainant, prayed for the dismissal of the present Complaint.

5. On being called upon by this forum, to do so, Learned Counsel for the complainant tendered an affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex. C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the OP tendered into evidence self declaration of Ashish Pal, Pramod Mittal, Kashmir Singh and certain other documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex.OP-13, Ex.OP5/A, Ex.OP10/A and closed evidence. Written Arguments submitted by the parties have also been taken on record. Parties have reiterated the same things as stated in their respective pleadings.

6. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence with their kind assistance.

7. Perusal of the file and the repudiation Letter reveal that there are only two main questions which are required to be considered by this Commission and they are: Whether the new stock had been removed from the shop and there was only unusable/obsolete stock in the shop on the date of incident and whether it was an accidental fire or intentional as alleged?

8. Question No. 1: Whether the new stock, Gas Cylinder, Computer etc. were removed from the shop and there was only unusable & obsolete stock in the shop?

9. It is the submission of the OPs that Landlord Surjit Kaur, Her son Balkar Singh and some other persons (i.e. Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu MC of the concerned ward) had given statement to their investigator i.e. M/s Royal Associates, Kurukshetra, Haryana that new stock had been removed from the shop and there was only unusable, obsolete stock in the shop. Investigator's report is Ex. OP-5. To find out the veracity of this allegation, the statements given by these persons to the OP's investigator are worth reproducing here. Landlord Surjit Kaur has not given any statement to the OP's investigator. Investigator has not recorded her statement in his report. In fact perusal of the file shows that she was not even present at the site at the time of occurrence of the fire incident. She herself has not seen anything. Further, she in her letter dated 29.09.2018 to the insurance company (Ex. OP-4) has not mentioned anything about that the complainant had removed the new goods and there was only obsolete stock in the shop. The date of occurrence of the fire was 08.06.2018 and the date on which Landlord Surjit Kaur had written the above letter to the Insurance Company is 29.09.2018 (nearly after 3 months). If Surjit Kaur had anything to inform to the insurance company about the genuineness of the claim of the Complainant then why she remained silent for about 3 months. Further, if she had any information with regard to the claim of the Complainant then why didn't she appear before the Surveyor who had started the inspection immediately after the incident. Next statement is of Balkar Singh. Balkar Singh is the son of the Landlord Surjit Kaur. He had given the statement to the investigator that, "I was on tour to Manali during June 2018 and came to know that these shops caught fire on 08.06.2018 at 9 AM. I came back from Manali on 10.06.2018 and went to the market. Then the neighbours told me." From the statement of Balkar Singh it is completely clear that he was also not present at the site at the time of occurrence of the fire incident. He himself has not seen anything. His statement is also nothing but a hearsay statement based on what he heard from the neighbours. Mr. Harbhajan Singh s/o Baghel Singh is a tailor master. He had stated to the investigator that, "The Complainant used to prepare tea in his shop. He had brought the gas cylinder to home during the June itself. He had taken out his computer also from the shop. I was present at my shop on 08.06.2018 at about 9 PM. I had seen that Sameer Chhabra had taken out the goods 4-5 times by Tata Ace (Chhota Hathi) before one day of fire incident." Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu s/o Labh Singh Sidhu had given the statement to the investigator that, "In fact Sameer had taken out 5-6 tempo loads of goods from shop in the morning itself People said that Sameer has taken out the fresh goods from the shop."

10. There is no uniformity and consistency in the above statements. Surjit Kaur and Balkar Singh were not present at the site at the time of incident and Harbhajan Singh has said that the Complainant had removed the new goods before one day of the fire incident whereas Gurpreet Singh Sidhu has stated that Complainant had removed the new goods in the morning itself. Further, if they had any information with regard to the claim of the Complainant then why didn't they appear before the Surveyor who had started the inspection immediately after the incident. Their 2 to 3 months post incident statements do not have any evidentiary value. As a general rule, the conduct of a person in not disclosing the facts known to him soon after the incident makes his conduct an unnatural one which is sufficient to reject his testimony.

11. Even the photographs attached by the investigator in his report (Page No.

9 of 52 of the Investigator's Report, Ex. OP-3) show that the shop of the Complainant is located on a very narrow road which is a one-way closed road and where at a time only one four-wheeler can enter and come out. This road is only 10-12 feet wide and when a four-wheeler enters, every adjoining shopkeeper can easily see that vehicle even without coming out of his shop. So, if the Complainant had tried to remove the new goods from the shop then why Harbhajan Singh and Gurpreet Singh Sidhu could not see that four wheeler at the same time. How can it be possible that a four wheeler which allegedly ran in and out on that narrow closed road for about 4 to 5 times did not come into the sight of Harbhajan Singh and Gurpreet Singh Sidhu at the same time? The contradictory statements of Harbhajan Singh and Gurpreet Singh Sidhu are itself explanatory of the fact that these are completely concocted and fabricated. These statements recorded by the investigator have no evidentiary value as they were not recorded immediately after the incident. All of them were recorded around 2-3 months after the date of the incident. Further, the Complainant in Para No. 12(ii) of the Complaint and Para 7 of the Written Arguments has stated that CCTV Cameras are installed on about every nearby shops but not even a single footage proves the removal of any stock or other things with 4-5 Tata Aces. He further said that the Investigator himself has attached some CCTV pictures in his report but not even a single picture has been attached regarding it except some procured statements only.

12. Further, the Complainant has produced on record the duly sworn Affidavit of Bimal Chander (Ex C-8) wherein Bimal Chander has deposed that, "My shop (Garg Leathers) is in front of this "one way road" in which the complainant's shop is situated. Sameer Chhabra s/o Mr. Suraj Chhabda Prop. of Patiala Lace House sells Chura, Sehra, Lance etc. in this shop. This shop is about 100 feet away right in front of my shop. On 08.06.2018, a fire broke out at Sameer Chhabra's shop. I have come to know that some people have said that Sameer Chhabra had taken 5-6 tempos full of goods out of his shop a day ago. This is completely wrong, false and baseless. I was present at my shop all day on 07-08 June 2018 and nothing like that happened. In this matter false statements have been made by some people due to their ongoing animosity with Sameer Chhabra, which are completely wrong, false and baseless." On the same lines some other Proprietors of the neighbouring shops i.e. Zimmy Garg, Sukhpreet Singh, Charanjeet Kaur, Rajveer Kaur and Baldev Singh have given their duly sworn Affidavits which are on record from Ex. C-9 to C-13.

13. OPs have submitted that one Gurpreet Singh s/o Gurmail Singh R/o village kotli khurd who was working as Accountant-cum-Manager at the Complainant's shop had given a statement before their investigator that the stocks in the shop were 6-7 years old. This submission is also completely false. Gurpreet Singh has not given any such statement, rather he had stated that, "the sale is nearly Rs. 20,000/- per day and the goods are procured from Gujarat.... Most of the goods burnt and the stock was of nearly Rs. 65 Lakh..."

14. Fire had occurred in the shop of the Complainant on dated 08.06.2018. The Surveyor appointed by the OPs had conducted the spot survey on the immediately next day i.e. on 9th June 2018. His detailed Report is placed on file as Ex. C-7. This report is self-explanatory. The surveyor has given a detailed report touching all the aspects of the incident viz-a-viz furniture, fixture, fittings, stock of goods in package form and in loose form. Point No. 13 of this report shows that as per the Balance Sheets the financial position of the insured was satisfactory. In Point No. 14, under the heading of Monthly Purchase/Sales, total purchases and sales of the Complainant in the immediately preceding 12 months (i.e. 2017-18) have been shown at the value of Rs. 75,10,988/- and Rs. 74,35,951/- respectively. And further under the heading of Salvage Value, value of Total stock on the date of incident has been shown as Rs. 52,70,737/-.

15. There is not even a single evidence to prove that the stock lying in the Complainant's shop was 6-7 years old and it was replaced by the Complainant before the incident with some unsalable and obsolete stock. The whole story of the OPs is based only upon the post-incident hearsay statements of some persons for which no cogent and convincing evidence is available on record. Hence, on the basis of the above observations, the first question results into negative.

16. Question No. 2: Whether it was an accidental fire or intentional as alleged?

17. OPs have submitted that, Landlord Surjit Kaur, Her son Balkar Singh and some other persons (i.e Harbhajan Singh, M.C.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Mrs. Charanjit Kaur and Mrs. Rajveer Kaur) had given statements to their investigator M/s Royal Associates that the complainant himself had put fire in his shop. OPs have said that as per the statement of above mentioned persons, normal working hours of the shop were 9 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. but on the date of the alleged incident the complainant left all his workers before 8 p.m. and himself shut down the shop at around 9 p.m. and within a short period of time at about 9:10 p.m. the neighbours noticed the fire in the shop. The neighbours tried to contact the Complainant on telephone/mobile but he did not respond. Further, OPs have argued that the complainant had admitted before their investigator that he, upon getting the information of the fire, had returned back to shop from his way to the house and after coming back he himself had opened the locks of the shop whereas the above mentioned persons had stated to the investigator that locks of the shop had been broken by them because the Complainant on returning back to shop had told that he forgot to bring the keys. OPs have argued that how could the Complainant forget to bring the keys when he had not reached the house and had returned back to the shop from his way to the home. On the basis of these statements of the above mentioned persons OPs have alleged that the Complainant has concealed the material things and there are doubts that the complainant himself had put the fire in the shop.

18. In order to find out the truth of this allegation, the statements of these persons are required to be considered which are as follows : As proved in the preceding paragraphs, Landlord Surjit Kaur and her son Balkar Singh were not present at the incident site on the day of occurrence of the incident. They have not seen anything directly. Their statement is neither direct nor relevant. Further, they might have given these statements to the investigator due to their ongoing dispute with the complainant regarding the non payment of the demanded amount of Rs. 5 Lakh by the complainant. The Statements of Harbhajan Singh and of M.C.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu are also contradictory to each other. Therefore, these statements are also neither trustworthy nor free from the chances of afterthought fabrication. And as far as the statement of Mrs. Charanjit Kaur and Mrs. Rajveer Kaur is concerned, both of them have produced on record their duly sworn affidavits (Ex. C-11, C-12) wherein Mrs. Rajveer Kaur has stated that, "after some time Sameer had come with the keys of the shop and my husband and other neighbouring people of the street opened the locks of the shop. On 23.10.2018 our old neighbour Balkar Singh along with 3-4 more people came to me. He came and told me that we have to take your statement about Patiala Lace House and he put pressure on me and took my statement.... I had given my first statement under pressure from Balkar Singh and his associates. There is no truth in all those things which are recorded in that statement." Therefore, the earlier statements of Mrs. Charanjit Kaur and Mrs. Rajveer Kaur had also no evidentiary value as it were not their free, express and voluntary expressions.

19. Submission of the OPs that the complainant used to make tea in his shop and he had removed the Gas Cylinder, Computer from the shop is also not proving anything. OPs themselves have submitted that the complainant had removed the Cylinder and Computer during the month of June. This statement is only of a general nature. There is no evidence that the complainant had removed the Gas Cylinder or Computer immediately before the incident. Further, as stated above, neither the CCTV camera footage of nearby shops nor the pictures attached by the investigator with his report proves the removal of anything by the complainant immediately before the incident.

20. Perusal of the whole case file reveals that the investigator has prepared his report on the basis of some statements of neighbours and workers only. He had neither checked any Stock Registers nor inspected the Bank Account statements, GST Returns, Sales Registers, Purchase Registers of the Complainant. From the Surveyor's report, it is completely visible that the Complainant had a satisfactory financial position and he was successfully running the business with annual sales of Rs. 75,10,988/- in the immediately preceding year. His financial data shows that he couldn't have any need or other reason to put fire in his ongoing sound business. Further, The Surveyor who was immediately appointed to inspect the claim of the Complainant also did not come across any specific evidence or finding to conclude that the cause of the fire was a wilful act of the insured. Paragraph No. 8 of the Surveyor's Report (Ex. C-7) is providing that no evidence of any malicious damages was found. This para is reproduced as below :

8. Cause of Fire : The cause of the fire was discussed with the insured who was not sure about it but expected it to be due to electric short circuit. The fire brigade report is silent about the cause of fire. In the police report it is mentioned that there was a sudden fire in the shop. At the time of survey it was observed that all the electric fittings of the shop were badly burnt. Stocks are not prone to spontaneous combustion, there was no one inside the shop at the time of fire thus fire due to smoking and spontaneous combustion is ruled out. We have not come across any evidence to suspect malicious damages. After careful examination of the circumstances of the fire, it is concluded that most likely the fire was caused by electric short- circuiting, therefore it is considered as accidental.

21. On the basis of the above, this second question also results into negative with the conclusion that the fire occurred in the Complainant's shop was an accidental fire. The investigator had wrongly doubted the reason for the fire. There was no justifiable ground for holding that the fire was not an accidental fire. There is no documentary evidence or expert report on record to prove that the fire was not an accidental fire. There was no reason to doubt the surveyor's report.

22. In the matter of Ashu Textiles vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 272 (NC) it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that Surveyor's Report has to be given more weightage. In Dabiruddin Cold Storage vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC) it was held that Surveyor's Report being an important document, cannot be easily brushed aside. The insurer was held liable to pay the loss assessed by the Surveyor, with interest. In Indo Phytochem Pharmaceuticals vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. I (2014) CPJ 255 (Har.) It was held by the Hon'ble State Commission of Haryana that once opposite parties had taken consent of the Complainant towards full and final settlement, it cannot escape from liability to pay said amount. Such act & conduct of the insurance company cannot be taken lightly. Awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as Punitive Costs.

23. OP has argued that the instant complaint is barred by limitation. He argued that claim of the Complainant was repudiated on 02.01.2019 and as per the terms & conditions of the policy the complaint could be filed within 12 months from the date of repudiation of insurance claim but the instant complaint was filed on dated 14.10.2020, therefore according to the policy terms, it is barred by limitation. Dealing with this same issue, the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Anurag Sugars Ltd Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Consumer Complaint No.CC/13/100, decided on 10.12.2018) had held that limitation in consumer cases is calculated as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Observations made by the Honble Maharashtra State Commission in the ibid case under Para No.

19 are reproduced as below:

19. Point no.1-Limitation:- It is the stand of the opponent in written statement that consumer complaint is barred by limitation in view of terms and conditions of policy. The complaint is filed as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The limitation will govern as per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The accidental fire was occurred in Godown no.3 of complainant's factory at Yawat on 03/03/2011. The claim was lodged under policy to the opponent on 05/04/2011. The surveyor submitted his Final report on 24/05/2011. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opponent-Insurance company on 03/08/2011. The consumer complaint is filed with two years from the date of repudiation of the claim. As such, consumer complaint is within limitation. As such, we answer point no.1 for determination in affirmative. Further, In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anil Sharma, Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2684 of 2010 decided on 26.08.2020, in Para-8 observed as under : We have carefully examined the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In respect of the limitation period, we agree with the finding of the State Commission because, the repudiation has been made vide letter dated 10.04.2007 and the complaint has been filed before the District Forum on 23.09.2008. Thus, the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of repudiation when the cause of action arose. Otherwise also, condition no.7 of the policy is against the provision of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and a larger Bench of this Commission in the case of RA No.87 of 2017 in CC/163/2016, Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., decided 05.09.2018 has taken this view. As the present complaint was filed within two years from the date of repudiation of insurance claim, therefore, in the light of above judgements, the present complaint cannot be stamped as time barred. It is well within the Limitation. As long as the complaint is within the statutory period of limitation fixed under the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has every Right to be heard.

24. In view of the above and considering the circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the Report of the Surveyor was an important document and in the absence of any observations or recommendations made by the Surveyor raising any suspicion regarding the cause of fire, holding of a further investigation without any logic was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It can be easily inferred from the facts of the case that OPs had no intention to pay the compensation amount but they didn't have any excuse to make a formal denial to the Complainant. But when they received that complaint letter of dated 29.09.2018 from the landlord, wings got attached to their intentions and within just 1 month, the investigator on dated 29.10.2018 submitted the denial report to the company. Where the Surveyor had conducted the detailed Survey in about 4 months time, there this subsequently appointed investigator, after taking some statements from here and there, rejected the claim of the complainant within just 1 month and the insurance company also on the basis of this Investigator's report repudiated the claim of the complainant. As such, on the basis of observations made above, this Commission is of the view that rejecting the claim of the complainant after arriving at the full & final settlement with the complainant, was an intentional and malafide act on the part of the OPs.

25. Resultantly, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to jointly and severally pay the insurance claim amount as ascertained by the Surveyor i.e. Rs. 48,94,149/- alongwith with interest @ 7% P.A. as compensation. Interest be paid from the date of repudiation of insurance claim (i.e. 02.01.2019) till the date of actual payment. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which interest @ 12% P.A. shall have to be paid for the period above ordered.

26. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

27. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

28. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and files be consigned to the record room. R.L.MITTAL PRESIDENT SHARDA ATTRI MEMBER SURAJ GOYAL MEMBER PRONOUNCED : 23TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021