National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vineet Vidge vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 23 April, 2026
Date of pronouncement:- 23rd April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 413 OF 2018
Vineet Vidge,
Prop. M/s Kapi's Creations,
5C/83, Ground Floor,
New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005. ..... Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office 111902,
Near Apollo Chowk,
Dr. Singla Wali Gali,
Railway Road,
Narwana - 126116, Jind, Haryana
Also at:
SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B,
Chandigarh - 160017. ....... Opp. Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Appearance at the time of arguments:-
For the Complainant : Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni, Advocate (VC)
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate (VC)
CC/413/2018 Page 1 of 13
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. Present complaint has been preferred by the complainant aggrieved against repudiation of claim by OP, vide letter dated 29.06.2017 in respect of loss of stocks sustained by the complainant in a fire incident on 19.01.2014.
2. In brief, complainant is engaged in business of manufacturing ladies suits, sarees etc. and had obtained a fire policy for the period 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 in respect of stocks worth Rs.3,05,00,000/-. Unfortunately, in a fire incident on 19.01.2014 in the premises, complainant suffered loss of stock valued by him at Rs.85-90 lakhs. The incident was duly reported to the police and FIR No.42 of 2014 under Section 287 IPC was registered. On intimation of incident, opposite party appointed a Surveyor to inspect the site. Complainant requested OP vide a letter dated 17.10.2015 to supply the copy of survey report but failed to elicit any response. The claim stands repudiated by OP vide letter dated 29.06.2017 on the basis of statement of a worker of the complainant, namely Jogender, who alleged negligence of complainant/owner of premises in failing to repair electric press, which caused the incident of fire. As per the complainant, a false and frivolous CC/413/2018 Page 2 of 13 statement had been made by the said worker against the interests of the complainant. Complainant accordingly seeks sum of Rs.90,00,000/- towards claim for loss along with interest and litigation expenses.
3. In the written version, Insurance Company/OP claimed that M/s Ravi Singhal & Associates was appointed as Surveyor on receipt of claim who submitted his report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.39,31,100/-. The complainant also gave his consent for settlement of the claim for the said amount as assessed by the Surveyor but during scrutiny of the claim papers, it was learnt that one of the factory worker, namely Jogender, had given a statement that incident of fire took place due to negligence of owner of the factory as he failed to repair the electric press despite being asked by Jogender. Further, fire could have been avoided in case the press had been repaired. OP further relied on the fact that as per final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., charge-sheet was filed against the complainant under Section 287/338 IPC. In the afore-said circumstances, OP averred that since the owner of the factory/complainant was negligent in not getting the electric press repaired, he violated condition No.8 of the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy. Consequently, the claim was treated as 'No Claim' and was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 29.06.2017. CC/413/2018 Page 3 of 13
4. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the complainant any negligence in repair of the electric press as alleged by the worker was refuted. Also, the loss of claim to tune of Rs.90,00,000/- was reiterated.
5. In support of his case, complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited copy of the insurance policy as Ex.CW-1/1; copy of letter dated 02.09.2015 as Ex.CW-1/2; copy of the reply dated 29.06.2017 as Ex.CW-1/3; copy of the letter dated 20.01.2014 as Ex.CW-1/4; copy of the letter dated 17.10.2015 as Ex.CW-1/5; copy of the fire report dated 27.01.2014 as Ex.CW-1/6; copy of FIR No.0042/2014 dated 19.01.2014 as EX.CW-1/7; copy of the grievance letter dated 16.11.2017 as Ex.CW- 1/8; copy of newspaper as Ex.CW-1/9; copy of the report of Fire Surveyor as Ex.CW-1/10; copy of the letter dated 15.05.2015 as Ex.CW- 1/11 and copy of the reply under RTI Act as Ex.CW-1/12.
6. On the other hand OP led evidence of Ms. Gitanjali Chauhan, Assistant Manager Legal by way of affidavit and exhibited charge sheet as Ex.OP-2 and letter dated 29.06.2017 as Ex. C-2
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterates the factual position and submits that the incident of fire was accidental and fire had been controlled after the fire engines were summoned at the spot. The claim is stated to have been illegally repudiated by the Insurance Company on CC/413/2018 Page 4 of 13 an alleged statement of worker of factory, namely Jogender which had been mischievously made and had not been proved on record. Any negligence in maintenance of press, which led to spread of fire was denied.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party relied upon the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whereby complainant was charge-sheeted under Section 287/338 IPC. He submits that negligence of the complainant is apparent since he failed to get the electric press repaired and thereby violated condition No.8 of the insurance policy.
9. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record accordingly.
The repudiation of claim by OP vide letter dated 29.06.2017 may be reproduced for reference:
"Sh. Vinit Vidge, M/s Kapi‟s Creation, SA/103, First Floor, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 Mob:- 9810020140 Dear Sir, Re: Fire Claim A/C M/s Kapi‟s Creation Pol No. 111902/11/13/11/00000012 Date of Loss: 19.01.2014 CC/413/2018 Page 5 of 13 With reference to above said Policy, you have sought claim for the loss due to fire incident in Kapi's Creation, 15A/12, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi, we have deputed an independent Investigator/Surveyor and have received his report.
From the contents of documents submitted by you, ongoing through the Survey/Investigation Report and Viz-a-viz the terms and conditions of the Policy issued to you, we regret to inform you that your claim is not payable on the following reasons:
"As per statements of workers of Factory, the incident was took place due to negligence of owner of Factory because he could not repaired Electric Press despite of asking of Jogender a worker in the factory and due to that Electric Press said fire incident had taken place. If the owner of the factory got repaired the Electric Press in time, then the fire incident may not be happened. So, it is established that owner of factory himself was negligent in not repairing the Electric Press in time. This is the violation of condition no. 8 of Standard Fire & Special Policy which status as "if the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the willful act, or with the connivance of the Insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited". One cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. So, in view of above facts and circumstances and under the terms and conditions of Policy, your claim is not payable, hence we have closed your claim file as "No Claim"
This letter is being issued without any prejudice. Thanking you CC/413/2018 Page 6 of 13 Yours faithfully, Sd/-
BRANCH MANAGER"
A mere perusal of aforesaid clause reflects that benefits of the policy shall stand forfeited if the claim in any respect is fraudulent or if any false declaration is made or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or if the loss or damage is occasioned by the wilful act or with the connivance of the insured.
10. It is well settled that under the Insurance Act, 1938, the report of an approved Surveyor may be the basis of foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. As such, the Surveyor's report is not a sacrosanct document and is subject to rebuttal. The Insurance Company may not accept the report of the Surveyor for cogent reasons in case any substantial piece of evidence or report has been overlooked by the Surveyor. In view of the fact that Surveyor overlooked the registration of FIR under Section 287/338 IPC against the owner/complainant attributing allegation of wilful negligence which resulted in burn injuries to staff, the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim under Clause 8 of the policy subject to proof of wilful conduct of the complainant.
CC/413/2018 Page 7 of 13
11. It is well settled that cause of fire becomes material in case where the fire is occasioned not by negligence but by the wilful act of insured himself or someone acting with his privity. In the said circumstances, conduct coupled with making of claim is a fraud upon the insurer. Observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2821 in para 24 in the context of fire insurance policy may be beneficially reproduced for reference:-
"24. The principles governing "Fire Insurance" have been very succinctly laid down by this Court in the case of Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd. v. National insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2309, wherein it was held that if there was a fire and something was on fire which ought not to be on fire and such a fire was not caused by the wilful act of the insured, then any loss attributable to fire would be covered under the policy. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced herein under:
"....REASONING PRINCIPLES GOVERNING „FIRE INSURANCE‟ "...32. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that fire insurance is a strategic tool for risk management, asset protection and economic resilience. Fire insurance policy does not prevent fire - but it cushions the financial impact when it occurs. Keeping in view the importance of the concept of fire insurance, it is important to outline the principles governing the same.
33. It is settled law that the contract of fire insurance is a contract to indemnify the Insured against loss by fire. The expression „fire‟ signifies the cause of the loss and in order to CC/413/2018 Page 8 of 13 determine whether in a particular case the loss is caused by fire, the following rules generally apply:--
a) There must be an actual fire; hence mere heating or fermentation will not be sufficient to render the insurers liable for loss occasioned thereby.
b) There must be something on fire which ought not to have been on fire.
c) There must be something in the nature of an accident, but a fire occasioned by the wilful act of a third person without the consent of the Insured, is to be regarded as accidental for the purpose of this rule. If these requisites are satisfied, any loss attributable to the fire, whether by actual burning or otherwise, is within the contract.
34. The object of the contract is to protect the Insured against loss occasioned by fire. The fire must be accidental. The dictionary meaning of the expression „accidental‟ is a „happening occurring unexpectedly or by chance‟. Consequently, damage from a deliberately set fire will not be covered. To carry out the investigation, therefore, beyond the cause of the loss and to cast upon the Insured the burden of establishing that the cause of the fire itself was covered by his contract, would largely defeat this object.
35. The cause of fire, however, becomes material where the circumstances of the case are open to suspicion, and seem to indicate that it would be contrary to the principle of good faith (doctrine of uberrima fides) inherent in the contract to permit the Insured to recover. Accordingly, the cause of fire becomes material in cases where the fire is occasioned not by negligence but by the wilful act of Insured himself or of someone acting with his privity or consent. In such a case, his conduct, coupled with the making of a claim, is a fraud upon the insurers and he cannot enforce his claim against them. (See: The Law Relating CC/413/2018 Page 9 of 13 to Fire Insurance by A.W. Baker Welford and W.W. Otter-Barry Fourth Edition).
36. This Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mudit Roadways, (2024) 3 SCC 193 has held, „the precise cause of a fire, whether attributed to a short-circuit or any alternative factor, remains immaterial, provided the claimant is not the instigator of the fire‟. The said judgment categorically holds that the precise cause of fire is immaterial provided the Insured is not the instigator of the fire.
This judgment underscores the importance of insurers‟ duty to act in good faith and honour its commitment to the Insured.
37. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that once it is established that the loss is due to fire and there is no allegation/finding of fraud or that the Insured is the instigator of the fire, the cause of fire is immaterial and it will have to be assumed and presumed that the fire is accidental and falls within the ambit and scope of fire policy..."
(Emphasis Supplied)"
12. Reverting back to the facts of the case, on the face of record, the claim stands repudiated by OP on account of alleged statement of a factory worker (Jogender) made during investigation to the police, who attributed the incident of fire due to negligence of complainant in not getting the electric press repaired. As per OP, the same constitutes violation of condition No.8 of the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy as reproduced above.
However, it is pertinent to note that FIR No.42 of 2014 dated 19.01.2014 was registered at the instance of one Sunita w/o Pappu CC/413/2018 Page 10 of 13 Singh who had suffered burn injuries in the incident but did not specify negligence of the complainant in maintaining the electric press, in the FIR. During the course of survey, Surveyor also recorded statement of one Gyanander Kumar who was working as Supervisor in the entity of the complainant and confirmed that the incident of fire took place on account of fire in the electric press, which resulted in loss of stocks in the premises but did not allege negligence in maintenance of electric press by the complainant. The claim stands repudiated and treated as 'no claim' merely on the basis of statement of Jogender, as reflected in charge-sheet filed by the police, who attributed the fire incident due to negligence in maintenance of electric press by complainant but without examining him on record or bringing the outcome of criminal proceedings against the complainant.
13. The loss or damage in incident of fire is solely attributed by the Insurance Company to the wilful act of negligence by the complainant in omitting to get the electric press repaired. However, it may be noticed that 'willful misconduct' takes a higher degree of culpability characterized by intentional act, and is carried out in order that subsequent harm or loss may occur. Further, it may include reckless disregard as to the probable occurrence regardless of risk, danger or otherwise. The CC/413/2018 Page 11 of 13 insurer, as such, is required to prove that insured acted in a state of wilful misconduct in maintenance of the electric machine and was negligent in getting the same repaired. As per the Survey Report, the fire may have been caused due to overheating of electric press or any spark in electric short circuit and was accidental in nature. There is not even a whisper of negligence in maintenance of electric press in the Survey Report. It is pertinent to note that only selected portion of the charge-sheet has been relied upon by the Insurance Company for the purpose of repudiation without placing on record any technical report to support if there had been any negligence in maintenance of the electric press. Neither the aforesaid worker Jogender who is alleged to have made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police has been examined by the Insurance Company before this Commission nor his statement was got independently recorded by OP. In view of above, in absence of any cogent evidence, wilful negligence on the part of the complainant cannot be attributed. Merely on account of registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet, the negligence cannot be assumed for the purpose of present proceedings. Even the outcome of the aforesaid criminal proceedings has not been brought on record by the Insurance Company.
CC/413/2018 Page 12 of 13
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any justification in repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company.
14. Since no anomaly in the assessment of loss of claim by Surveyor or any evidence to contrary has been pointed on record, which is based upon factual assessment of stock by the Surveyor, OP is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.39,31,100/- as assessed by Surveyor with interest @ 6% per annum, effective six months from the date of incident (i.e. 19.01.2014) till realization within eight weeks of passing of this Order. If the Opposite Party fails to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the balance amount shall be payable with enhanced rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization. Complaint is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
A copy of this Order be provided to the concerned parties by the Registry.
............................................. (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ........................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J) MEMBER ar/sd/B-4/reserved matter CC/413/2018 Page 13 of 13