R.M. Lodha JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 (for short, `The Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated October 30, 2001 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ( for short, ` National Commission') whereby the complaint filed by the appellant for direction to the respondent to settle the insurance claim alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 25 lakh on account of mental agony, harassment and monetary loss came to be dismissed.
2. The sequence of facts may be noticed first. Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. came to be incorporated in 1993 with an object of setting up a floriculture project in the State of Maharashtra. In 1995, the company started negotiations with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as `Insurance Company') for a comprehensive floriculture insurance policy. On January 18,1996, the company (hereinafter referred to as `insured') submitted a proposal to the Insurance Company for a comprehensive floriculture insurance of poly-house (Rs. 1.25 crore), irrigation system (Rs. 25 lakh), cost of cultivation of flowers (Rs. 25 lakh) and input cost from first flowering to the harvest (Rs. 25 lakh). The Insurance Company issued a comprehensive Floriculture Insurance Policy (`Policy', in short) on January 23,1996, period of insurance being from January 18,1996 to January 17,1997 and charged premium of Rs. 2,31,000/-. On May 23,1996, according to the insured there was a severe storm/cyclone, which damaged the floriculture extensively and substantial damage was caused to the roofs and walls of the poly-houses. On June 18/19,1996, there was another storm/cyclone. As a result of which the floriculture project of the insured and the poly clothes and the roofs as well as walls of the poly-houses were extensively damaged; certain poly-houses even collapsed completely. For the loss suffered in the first storm/cyclone, a claim for Rs. 31,17,140/- was submitted by the insured with the Insurance Company. The insured submitted another claim for Rs. 38,97,906/- in respect of loss suffered due to second storm/cyclone that occurred on June 18/19,1996.
3. The Insurance Company appointed M/s Standard Surveyors Private Limited as their Surveyors for assessing the loss claimed by the insured. The Surveyors submitted their report on October 24,1996 and assessed the loss suffered by the insured at Rs. 28,85,243/- in respect of the first storm. On October 28,1996, the Surveyors submitted its second report in respect of the second storm/cyclone and assessed the loss at Rs. 34,81,214/-.
4. On November 28,1996, the Insurance Company informed the Surveyors that their report included loss to poly- houses Nos. 7, 8A and 8B whereas the policy covered only poly-houses 1 to 6. The Surveyors were, accordingly, asked to reassess the loss.
5. On December 19,1996, the Surveyors gave their clarification to the Insurance Company that all the poly-houses were covered under the policy and their assessment was correct and fair.
6. The Insurance Company, then, appointed M/s Jupiter Claim Consultants as investigators for verification of the claim. The insured was also asked to furnish necessary documents to the said investigators. The investigators are said to have submitted their report on September 12,1997 stating therein that they were not able ........