National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Rama Krishna Spintex (P) Ltd. on 19 March, 2026
oe IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 04.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 19.03.2026 REVISION PETITION NO. 1084 OF 2017 (From the order dated 16.12.2016 in F.A. No. 1396/2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh) United Indialnsurance Co.Ltd... Petitioner(s) Through duly constituted Attorney . Regional Office No.1 18, Barakhamba Road, 8" Floor Kanchenjunga Building New Delhi-110001 Versus : Rama Krishna Spintex(P)Ltd. ae Respondent Through its Director Shri Mahavir Kumar Anaj Mandi Maur Mandi, Teshil Tawandi Sabo District Bhatinda, Punjab BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate and Ms. Rokosieno Z Mayase, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. MK Ghosh, Advocate ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The. present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 16.12.2016 of the State RP/1084/2017. Page 1 of 14 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1396 of 2013 in which order dated 28.10.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bathinda, hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 209 of 2008 was challenged.
2. While the Revision Petitioner was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum, the Respondent was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 12.05.2017. Parties also filed their Written Arguments / Synopsis.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the complainant company purchased second-hand spinning plant and machinery, certified to be in working condition with a remaining life of at least 10 years, from M/s Ramsay McDonald Pvt. Ltd., Australia, through M/s . Schenker India Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. The machinery was transported to India and thereafter to the premises of the complainant company. On arrival of the said machinery, it was to be installed. The complainant company got the said plant and machinery, accessories and stock for the purpose of storage and erection insured with the OP for the period 10.07.2007 10.11.2007 for a sum insured of Rs.2 crores against premium of Rs.35,394/-. During installation, several components of the machinery suffered damage, including parts of section of machinery and suffered damages i.e. Autocoro SE7 and SE8, 4 sections Platt cards, calender-roll beams, coiler beam drives, and control panels. The complainant informed the opposite parties of the damage vide letter dated 20.08.2007 and claimed an estimated loss of %6,84,800. the opposite parties appointed M/s V.K. Mehta Associates as surveyor, to inspect to damaged machinery and called upon the complainant to submit certain documents which were duly supplied by the complainant. Despite assurances of early settlement, the surveyor later demanded additional documents which, according to the complainant, were irrelevant. The complainant replied on 08.10.2007 and repeatedly requested settlement, including serving a legal notice dated 19.01.2008. Ultimately, the opposite parties repudiated the claim vide letter dated 06.06.2008 as "No Claim," citing non-submission of documents. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 17.08.2009 observed that complaint cannot be disposed of in a summary fashion and same was dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction or any other forum, if so, advised. The said order was challenged before the State Commission and State Commission remanded the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal vide order RP/1084/2017 Page 2 of 14 dated 29.08.2013. On remand, the District Commission disposed of the said complaint vide its order dated 28.10.2013 dismissing the complaint on merits. The said order of the District Forum was again challenged before the State Commission by way of First Appeal, which was partly allowed vide order dated 16.12.2016. Now, the OP is before this Commission in the present RP. The said order of the State Commission was not challenged by the Complainant.
5. Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the following grounds :
a. State Commission has erred in not appreciating that the loss occurred during the transit phase and in order to cover up the said loss the respondent obtained the policy in question.
b. State Commission failed to appreciate that the observation of the surveyor regarding fraudulently obtaining of the policy in question has been unrebutted.
C. The surveyor's report is an important document and sufficient reason ought to have been shown in rejecting it. The report of the Surveyor carries infinite significance as was held in Roshan LaL Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors.,(2000) 10 SCC 19 and in D.N. Badoni vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., | (2012) CPJ 272(NC.
d. State Commission failed to consider that the respondent did not furnish requisite documents in order to establish its claims. In absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the respondent, the state commission ought not to have foisted any liability on the petitioner.
6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1 Counsel for the Petitioner argued that machinery in question was a second hand and there was no proper legal and valid records showing its fitness, valuation, inspection report at the Port or landing, storage, errection, submitting further that complainant has violated the mandatory provisions of the policy in question by not cooperating with the surveyors for assessment of. the alleged loss and have willfully refused / ignored to supply the requisite documents which were called upon. Further, there is nothing on the record to show that there was any damage to the alleged parts during the installation of the machinery. There is also no record to show that the alleged parts were in proper and fit condition for the use before issuance of insurance policy. The complainant did not cooperate with the surveyor nor submitted the requisite RP/1084/2017 Page 3 of 14 documents. The complainant delayed the submission of the requisite documents and later on they submitted few papers which were not proper, sufficient and requisite as demanded by the surveyor. Further, petitioner had nothing to do with the transporting of machinery enroute, rather the same is most important fact for assessing the actual alleged loss because in case the alleged loss had already been caused before the arrival of the plant and machinery at the premises of complainant, then no such liability can be fastened upon the petitioner. Surveyor during the course of its survey and inspection, found that few parts of carding and autocoro machines were broken during lifting and shifting. Further, the damage could have resulted during unloading as sections of 4 autocoro machines were found broken. The damage appeared old and were not possible during erection since the same parts of different machine cannot break during erection.
6.2. Itis also argued that respondent has not disclosed as to whether there was any marine insurance policy of the goods / machinery in question. Insured had not lodged any claim on the carriers nor there was no single report indicating that the machinery was intact when offered for storage cum erection insurance. _ It is suspected that machinery was damaged in transit but since there was no transit insurance, the insured got it insured for storage cum erection to fraudulently cover the loss. | Further, the respondent did not submit the details of the total loss or machinery nor disclosed the material fact that the old / obsolete machinery manufactured in the year 1981 had been purchased. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Lal Oil Mills and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC.
6.3. Counsel for the respondent argued that power of National Commission in a revision petition under section 21 of the Act is very limited and can only be exercised in case of jurisdictional error committed by the State Commission. Further, Petitioner has failed to place on record any cogent evidence at all in support of their contention that the machinery or plant was damaged during installation. Further, State Commission has correctly appreciated the fact that complainant i.e. the respondent herein. had pleaded positive evidence by way of affidavit of Mr.Mahavir Kumar ruling out any damage to the machinery and plant during preloading, unloading or transit. It is also argued that State Commission has correctly held that report of the Surveyor is not conclusive in nature and it can be rebutted by other credible evidence. Further, surveyor was not an eye witness to the loss . Counsel also argued that it is very well settled that an insured who takes the insurance policy cannot trade or carry on any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy. | Counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
a. Momna Gauri Vs. Scooter India Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 307 b. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.RP/1084/2017 Page 4 of 14
C. Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2005 ( 1) CLT 97 d. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC
787.
7. The case was heard at length from both sides on 04.12.2025. This order, which briefly records the facts of the case and rival contentions of the parties, is reproduced below:
7. Heard counsel for both sides. Challenge is to order dated 16.12.2016 of the State Commission vide which First Appeal filed by the respondent herein (complainant) was allowed and the petitioner insurance company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1.80 lakhs along with interest and litigation costs etc. Earlier the District Commission in CC/209/2008 vide its order dated 17.08.2009 observing that the complaint cannot be disposed of in a summary fashion and the same was dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy before Civil Court. This order was challenged before the State Commission and the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for fresh disposal vide its order dated 29.08.2013. Subsequently, the District Commission disposed off the said complaint vide its order dated 28.10.2013 dismissing the complaint on merits. This order was again challenged before the State Commission in the First Appeal which was allowed partly as per its order dated 16.12.2016 with directions to the OP insurance company as observed above.
2. The respondent herein/complainant has _ not challenged the above said order of the State Commission.
The main contention of the insurance company was that they had asked for certain documents from the insurer, which in their judgment were essential to consider the claim but the insurer failed to supply those essential documents, hence the claim was closed for want of documents. On the other hand the insured has contended that all required documents were supplied and the insurance company was demanding certain unwarranted documents, especially some pertaining to the period prior to the issuance of the insurance policy which were not required and this issue was also considered by this Commission vide its order dated 16.05.2023.
RP/1084/2017 . Page 5 of 143. The State Commission relied on the evidence of the complainant, which was primarily the affidavit evidence of the director of the insurer company that the loss happened at the site during the storage/erection and not during transit as alleged by the insurance company. The insurance company on the other hand contended that the circumstances and non-submission of the documents show a possibility of the damage having taken place during transit. The policy was issued on 10.07.2007. Although in the complaint it is mentioned that at the time of issuance of the policy the machinery was inspected at site (para 5 of the complaint) this has been denied by the insurance company in their written version stating that the cover note was issued before arrival of the machinery at site. There are no documents/any other reliable evidence to show as to on which date the machinery arrived at site. It is not in dispute that the coverage is only for damage at site either from storage or erection and not during transit.
4. The complainant has drawn our attention to a letter at page 83 stating that they have supplied the inspection report and chartered engineer's report at origin. They have also stated in this letter that inspection report on port of landing and inspection report after taking delivery is not under their scope. There is no policy for coverage during transit either from petitioner insurance company or from any other insurance company.
5. Hence the basic question to be considered in the present case is whether the loss to the machinery happened during transit or on or after arrival at site, i.e., during erection/storage. Other than the affidavit evidence of the director of the insurer company, there is no other evidence in this regard. Even the date of arrival at site is not on record. There is no document in support of the contention in the complaint that the machinery was inspected at site before issuing the cover note/policy.
6. After hearing both sides, judgment is reserved.
7. During the hearing counsel for the respondent sought liberty to file certain documents which are already part of the District Commission/State Commission record which may indicate the actual date of arrival of the machinery at site of the insurer and/or the fact that the machinery was indeed inspected at site before issuance of RP/1084/2017 Page 6 of 14 the cover note/policy as claimed. They were permitted to do so within two weeks from today with copy to other side. It was made clear that they can at most file copies of only those documents which are already part of the District Commission and/or State Commission record and they were not permitted to introduce any new document or evidence at this stage. Such documents should be filed only along with the covering affidavit which should clearly State that these documents are part of the District Commission or State Commission record, as the case may be.
8. In compliance of directions in para 7 of the order dated 04.12.2025 cited, the respondent filed an affidavit dated 12.12.2025 ( filed on 15.12.2025) of Mr. Mahavir Kumar, Authorised Representative and director of the respondent Company. Extract of relevant paras of this affidavit is reproduced below:
3. That the Respondent by this affidavit would like to bring on record and undated application named "Application for directing the opposite parties to produce the documents for inspection"
filed before the Hon'ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bathinda. The true copy of Application for directing the opposite parties to produce the documents for inspection is being attached herewith as ANNEXURE - R/1.
4. That in this application the complainant has sought the production of certain documents for the purpose of inspection which were in the custody of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. That the Respondent vide its reply to the application dated 25.11.2008, filed before the Hon'ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bathinda had denied to provide such documents. The true copy of reply to the application dated 25.11.2008 is being attached herewith as ANNEXURE -R/2.
6. That such denial on part of Petitioner goes to show the malafides, and further that they were trying to hide relevant documents which could have easily showed that the Petitioner United India Assurance had duly inspected the plant and machinery and thereafter the insurance cover note had been issued.
7. That it is empathetically stated that the insured is not supposed to have a copy of the inspection report of the goods insured by the insurer before issuing the cover note. It is an RP/1084/2017 Page 7 of 14 internal documents of the insurer and only on the basis of which the cover note is issued. |
9. Vide application dated 04.11.2008 filed before the District Commission referred to in the above stated affidavit, the respondent had sought directions for production of following documents, which were in possession of the OPs..
il.
Hi, iv.
The alleged report of the Surveyor appointed by the opposite parties with respect to the claim in question.
The investigation report with respect to the claim in question.
The copy of the insurance policy issued with respect to the cover note no. 14323 dated 10.07.2007 The copy of investigation report at the time of insurance by the opposite parties.
10. In response to the above stated application dated 04.11.2008 filed by the respondent, the Petitioner Insurance Company while supplying only the copy of the Insurance Policy, raised certain objections for the rest of request. Reply dated 25.11.2008 of the Petitioner Insurance Company is reproduced below:
LEGAL OBJECTIONS:
RP/1084/2017
1. That the application is not maintainable in the present form.
2. That the applicant/complainant has filed this application with a malafide intention to delay the proceedings, as no evidence is available with the complainant/applicant regarding their false claim made in this case. Otherwise neither there is any relevancy nor necessity of the alleged documents. Even the applicant has failed to furnish any particulars of the alleged documents and without proper detail and particulars, no proper reply can be given what to talk of producing the same.
3. That the application is false, frivolous, vexatious and has been filed just to gain time to prepare false evidence for baseless claim.
ON MERITS:-Page 8 of 14
1) That para no.1 of the application is a matter of record.
2) That para no.2 of the application as stated is wrong hence denied. The applicant has failed to give any reason or logic for the inspection of documents in question and even has not given the proper particulars of alleged documents.
i) That sub para (i) of para no.2 of the application does not find mention any date or number of report nor the name of surveyor referred by the applicant in this para of the application. Hence, the application is vague and baseless.
ii) That sub para (ii) of para no.2 of the application does not find mention of any date or number of report nor the name of Investigator referred by the applicant in this para of the application. There is no investigation report with the OP.
iii) That in reply to sub para (ili) of para no.2 of the application, it is submitted that Insurance Policy regarding cover note no.14323 dated 14.07.2007 had already been delivered to the ~ complainant and he never raised any such demand at any earlier stage. However copy is attached herewith.
iv) That sub para (iv) of para no.2 of the application does not find mention any date or number of report nor the name of Investigator referred by the applicant in this para of the application. There is no investigation report with the OP.
3) That para no.3 of the. application as stated is wrong hence denied.
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be ._ dismissed with special costs.
RP/1084/2017 Page 9 of 14
11. It is not in dispute that the coverage is only for damage at site, either from storage or erection and not during the transit. Except for the affidavit evidence of the director of the Insured Company, there is no other evidence to show that damage is at site. However, we are of the view that the request made by the respondent vide letter dated 04.11.2008 before the District Commission for production of certain documents from the Petitioner Insurance Company was justified. The response of the Insurance Company dated 25.11.2008 to such a request, terming such request as having been made ~ with malafide intention to delay the proceedings etc. is not found valid. They could have either supplied these documents or given a specific response about the existence of such documents and / or reasons why such documents could not be supplied, rather than raising unwanted objections to such a request.
12. The State Commission considered at length the rival contentions of the parties. Extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below:
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The pleadings of the parties have been carefully examined by us with the assistance of counsel. for the parties. Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of Mahavir Singh Director of the complainant-company. He deposed his case as pleaded in the complaint. He testified that the documents were supplied to the surveyor and onty irrelevant documents were not supplied to him. He further stated that the damage took place while installing the machinery and plant. Evidence on the record of the complainant has been examined by us consisting of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-36 with regard to loss of complainant-company. The complainant is private limited company incorporated with the Registrar of Company. The OPs relied upon policy document i.e. Storage cum Erection Insurance Policy Ex.R-1. Ex.R-2 to R-11 are the other documents of the OPs. Ex.R-2 is the affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager of OPs to the effect that complainant had not supplied the essential documents to the surveyor to look into the matter. Ex.R-3 is the final report of surveyor dated 12.12.2007. It has proved that insured submitted detail of loss of Rs.6,83,800/-, but it is not supported by any quotation. He found the loss of Rs.1,80,000/- only. Ex.R-3 is the final report of V.K. Mehata Associates, surveyor and loss assessor finding the net loss of Rs.1,80,000/- only, RP/1084/2017 Page 10 of 14 RP/1084/2017 after deducting the salvage value of Rs.14,766/- from Rs.1,94,766/-. The correspondence consisting of Ex.R-4 to R-6 pertains to demand of documents. The surveyor demanded certain documents from complainant as per | Ex.R-7 and R-8 on the record. Ex.R-9 is the reply of OP.
Ex.R-10 is letter from Rama Krishna Spintes (P) Ltd. to branch manager of United India Insurance Company Malout regarding the claim. Ex.R-11 is the letter from OP to complainant demanding the documents. Ex.R-12 is the affidavit of V.K. Mehta Proprietor of M/s V.K. Mehta Associated Surveyor and loss assessor in support of Survey report. Ex.R-13 is copy of letter dated 16.10.2007 to Regional Manager of OP from complainant regarding insurance claim.
6. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide this case. The OPs refuted the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that damage was not caused while installing the machine and plant. The version of Opposite Party is that it might have been caused in the transportation and complainant failed to produce any Marine Insurance cover note and the claim lodged with if. The District Forum returned the finding on the basis of above evidence, as to why they were asking for documents which are beyond the purview. The District Forum observed that complainant company was storage cum erection and-- ' not marine cum erection. If the complainant purchased the marine transit policy of the machine in question, then why it was not produced. Report of surveyor Ex.R-3 is relied upon to the effect that damage might have resulted, while unloading, as Sections of 4 autocoro machinies were found broken. The transit insurance and inspection report after taking delivery were the essential documents to be brought on record. The District Forum came to the 'conclusion that the report of surveyor is trustworthy and he has found no loss during the storage and erection of the plant.
7. We, disagree with the reasoning of the District Forum on this point. The complainant pleaded and filed affidavit of Mahavir Kumar ruling out any such damage to the machinery and plant during transit. He categorically © pleaded and led positive evidence that the damage occurred at the time of installation of machinery only.
Page 11 of 14RP/1084/2017 Different letters which were handed between the the parties were not conclusive evidence at all. It was for the OPs to have led cogent evidence regarding damage to the machinery and plant during transit. When there is positive evidence of complainant with regard to damage while installation of the plant , then we cannot rely upon the inferential evidence that. it took place during preloading and unloading or in transit. We have to return the finding on the basis of evidence and not on mere surmises. The report of surveyor has also been examined by us. The surveyor is primarily appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor gave the finding that machinery and _ plant were quite old and he found the valuation of them in his report Ex.C-36. The report of surveyor is valuable piece of
- evidence, but it is not conclusive in nature, it can be rebutted by the other credible evidence on the record. Herein, the Surveyor was not _ the eye witness of the loss. He submitted the report on the. basis of inferences and hypothetical basis with regard to damage during transit. We cannot decide the case on mere surmises and conjectures and have to decide the case on the basis of solid evidence before us. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence. The surveyor found net loss of Rs.1,80,000/-
to the insured plant, vide report Ex.R-3 on the record dated 12 12 2007. We, thus, hold that District Forum took erroneous view of the matter in this case and complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as loss to the machinery = and plant, because it has not been proved to have taken in transit. The complainant might have transported it at his own risk without policy or with policy and OPs cannot repudiate the insurance claim on such supposition in our view
8. The next point is whether this complaint is maintainable by a private limited company through its Director on the averments that machinery and plant were installed for earning livelihood of its Director. It has been settled principle of law, as laid down by _ the National Commission in "Harsoliaa Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited" 2005(1)CLT-97 that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss. It is not to generate profits. On the basis .of law laid down by the National 'Commission on this point that loss under insurance policy Page 12 of 14 is for the purpose of indemnification only and hence the complainant is consumer and this complaint is held to be competent and legally maintainable.
9. As a corollary of our above discussion, we partly accept the appeal of the appellant by directing the respondents/OPs to pay the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till actual payment. There is no question of awarding compensation for mental harassment to the complainant, which is a juristic person and not a living person. We award the cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant / complainant. The complaint of the complainant is also partly accepted protanto as discussed above by reversing the order of the District forum. .
13. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments' that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in cases as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that the findings of State Commission are primarily based on the affidavit evidence of the director of the insured, but the State Commission in the given facts and circumstances of the case found it to be reliable and acceptable. Weé find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has given sufficient reasons to support its findings. Hence, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Accordingly, RP no.1084 of 2017 is dismissed.
Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ((2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ). Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 RP/1084/2017 Page 13 of 14
14. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
(DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
| (DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J. ) Am/ | MEMBER ( RP/1084/2017 Page 14 of 14 t