Fenasia Limited v United India Insurance Ltd is an insurance claim dispute in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein the complainant company is insured by United India Insurance Ltd and seeks compensation from the insurer. Fenasia Limited is a company engaged in manufacturing of different types of chemicals under the brand name of Fenasia. 

The company had obtained two insurance policies from X company covering risk of its building, plant & machineries and stocks of raw materials and/or finished goods and/or working process and/or packing materials, stocks of raw materials of leather chemicals and/or finished goods.

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

A huge fire broke out on 12th August, 2008 causing enormous loss to building, plant and machineries and stocks of its two units; Non Export Oriented Unit and 100% Export Oriented Unit. All the required formalities such as report in the police station, informing the custom and Central Excise Department and the insurer were duly complied. The insurer appointed Puri Crawford & Associates, India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi for the surveying the incident and assessing the loss.  The surveyor submitted that the cause of fire was accidental and was insured. 

However, the insurer appointed an investigator to check and verify the claims who after investigation submitted the report mentioning that the claim has been exaggerated to a large extent. Further, it stated that the accounts were tainted and that the stock value was calculated incorrectly. Based on this report, the claim was repudiated. 

It was submitted that appointment of investigator after the survey report was illegal. However, the commission in this matter held that Section 64UM of Insurance Act,1938 did not place any restriction on appointment of a fresh surveyor, if there is a valid requirement. In this case, the insurer appointed a fresh investigator for verifying the genuineness of the records.  

Several oddities and discrepancies in the accounts of the insured were also reported by the investigator which were not explained.

The commission held that, since the claim has been made on the basis of manipulated records and thus, fails to comply with the general conditions of the policy, the insurer is justified in repudiating the claim. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.