State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tek Ram vs Future Generali India Insurance Co. ... on 10 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/904/2019
TEK RAM
PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE SUNARIA KHURD, TEHSIL AND DISTT. ROHTAK.
,HARYANA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - 1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO. 401-402, MODEL TOWN ROHTAK. ,HARYANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER
MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. SURINDER KUMAR DAARIA, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. PARVEEN PROXY COUNSEL FOR MR. PUNIT JAIN COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT.
DATED: 10/04/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 05.09.2019 Date of final hearing: 10.04.2026 Date of order: 10.04.2026 First Appeal No.775 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 303-310, 3rd Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Cannaught Palace, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.
2nd Address: 1st Floor, Plot No.301-402, Model Town, Rohtak.
....Appellant Versus Tek Ram S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, R/o Village-Sunaria Khurd, Teh. and District Rohtak.
.....Respondent
CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER
Present: Mr. Parveen proxy counsel for Mr. Punit Jain, counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, counsel for respondent.
Date of Institution: 07.10.2019 Date of final hearing: 10.04.2026 Date of order: 10.04.2026 First Appeal No.904 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Tek Ram S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, Resident of Village Sunaria Khurd, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
....Appellant Versus Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., 1st Floor, Plot No.401-402, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.
.....Respondent
CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER
Present: Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Parveen proxy counsel for Mr. Punit Jain counsel for the respondent.
ORDER PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 20 days in filing of First Appeal No. 775 of 2019 and delay of 61 days in filing of First Appeal No. 904 of 2019 stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in their respective application seeking condonation of delay.
2. By this order; above mentioned two cross appeals are being disposed off. In both appeals; legality of order dated 09.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short "District Commission") in complaint case No.508 of 2017, vide which complainant's complaint has been allowed, has been questioned, separately.
3. Factual matrix: Complainant got installed a poly house in his fields and got insured the same from 28.07.2016 to 27.07.2017. The said poly house of complainant was got damaged and the vegetables and plants were also destroyed. Complainant intimated OP in this regard, who appointed the surveyor Sh. Rajesh Maheshwari. The surveyor inspected the site and prepared his report. The surveyor vide his letter dated 22.07.2017 has informed the complainant that the poly house was damaged due to rain and wind on 13.07.2017 and 14.07.2017 and assessed the loss of Rs.98,000/-, whereas the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.2,98,000/- and the surveyor did not properly surveyed the actual loss. There was no rain or wind on the above said dates. Complainant approached the OP and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour but despite his repeated requests, the amount of claim has not been paid to him. As per plea, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
4. Upon notice, OP raised its contest and submitted that the claim of complainant/insured was declined/denied as the loss to poly house of the complainant was due to rain/thunderstorm/storm. Complainant in written version dated 15.07.2017 to the surveyor of OP had himself stated that when he went to his poly house, he found that the polythene of the poly house was torn and that the plants inside had dried up. Complainant had further stated that the loss was due to rainy and windy conditions on 13.07.2017 and 14.07.2017. The surveyor of OP after completing the survey was of the opinion that the loss of complainant was due to thunderstorm/storm and this kind of peril i.e. due to thunderstorm/storm is not covered in STFI peril. Hence, the loss of complainant was not falling under scope of the policy and his claim was closed as 'No Claim'. This fact was also communicated to complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2017 that the policy was issued to the complainant with a specific exclusion that: "Loss due to storm Tempest Flood Inundation is not covered".
5. Parties to the lis led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary. After hearing the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has allowed the complaint vide order dated 09.07.2019 and directed the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to complainant. OP has been further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
6. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 09.07.2019; OP has filed First Appeal No. 775 of 2019, whereas complainant has filed his separate First Appeal No. 904 of 2019. Record of complaint case too has been perused.
7. This Commission has examined and perused the entire record as well as the original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of the parties. Admittedly, during subsistence of the policy, the poly house of the complainant/respondent was damaged. As per stance of the appellant the said damage caused to poly house was due to rain and wind and in order to prove its case, appellant relied upon the surveyor report dated 22.07.2017 wherein it was mentioned that the polythene of the poly house was got torn and vegetable plants were dead. The incident was not known; however, it seems that the damage was caused due to rain and wind on 13.07.2017 & 14.07.2017. The appellant has not placed on record any report of Meteorology Department to prove that on that day there was any warning about the storm or any newspaper cutting to prove that the storm had taken place in that area on that day. In wake of above discussion, this Commission has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that learned District Consumer Commission has thrashed the controversy in hand, meticulously by examining all relevant facets/evidence brought on record. There is no fallacy, legal or factual committed by learned District Consumer Commission while passing impugned order dated 09.07.2019. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 775 of 2019 of insurer is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
8. Complainant has prayed that he has spent Rs.2,98,000/- on the repair of the poly house and he is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.2,98,000/-. A perusal of the 'Additional Clauses, Conditions, Warrants and Exclusions' of the insurance policy provides for 10% of the claim amount subject to a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of each and every loss. In opinion of this Commission, learned District Consumer Commission has rightly and adequately compensated the complainant vide order dated 09.07.2019 and complainant is not entitled to any further compensation. Impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is hereby affirmed, maintained and upheld. First Appeal No. 904 of 2019 filed by complainant, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
9. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant in F.A. No.775 of 2019 at the time of filing of this appeal be disbursed to respondent/complainant (Tek Ram), after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of statutory period provided for further appeal /revision, if any.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. Original copy of this judgment be placed on record of F.A. No. 775 of 2019 being instituted prior in time and its duly attested photocopy be placed on record of First Appeal No. 904 of 2019.
13. Files of both appeals be consigned to record room.
10th April, 2026 S.C. Kaushik S.P. Sood
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
D.K.
..................
S . P . SOOD
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................
SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK
MEMBER