Archive · 15 Sep 2026
Consumer Commission Orders Rs 2.2 Crore Piling Rig Insurance Payout
A construction company’s large machine was badly damaged in a road accident in Odisha.
The company had insurance for the machine and filed a claim.
The insurer first agreed to pay about Rs 2.2 crore.
Later, the insurer suspected that the machine had been repaired and used somewhere else.
It rejected the claim, saying the company may have provided false information.
The commission said suspicion is not enough to prove fraud.
It found that the insurer did not show that the machine in Gujarat was the same one damaged in Odisha.
The insurer was ordered to pay the claim, interest, and legal costs.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered an insurer to pay Rs 2,20,84,178 to a construction company.
The company’s Soilmec SR-40 piling rig was damaged in a March 2, 2013 accident in Odisha.
The insurer initially approved the claim in September 2014 but withheld payment and later rejected it over alleged fraud.
The commission said the insurer lacked clear evidence that the damaged machine was repaired and reused in Gujarat.
The insurer must pay 8% annual interest from September 2, 2013, plus Rs 50,000 in litigation costs.
- Who
- A construction company, its public sector general insurer, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The commission ordered payment of Rs 2,20,84,178 for an insured piling rig, with interest and litigation costs.
- When
- The accident occurred on March 2, 2013; the commission’s order was issued on September 7.
- Where
- The piling rig was damaged at Bangriposi Ghat in Mayurbhanj district, Odisha; the insurer alleged it was later used in Gujarat.
- Why
- The commission found that the insurer had not provided clear and convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts.
Construction Company and Commission
Insurer’s Position
Whether fraud was proven
Construction Company and Commission
The company relied on the accident records, survey reports, and the equipment maker’s assessment showing extensive damage.
Insurer’s Position
The insurer alleged that the machine had not suffered a total loss and had been repaired and commercially used in Gujarat.
Identity of the machine in Gujarat
Construction Company and Commission
The commission found that the insurer’s investigator did not sufficiently establish that the machine in Gujarat was the same machine damaged in Odisha.
Insurer’s Position
The insurer relied on an investigation report identifying a Soilmec SR-40 with bearing serial number 3680 as operational at a Gujarat power project.
Reopening the approved claim
Construction Company and Commission
The commission said an approved claim may be reopened only when later fraud is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
Insurer’s Position
The insurer withdrew its earlier approval and rejected the claim after receiving allegations and commissioning a later investigation.
- Claim amount
- Rs 2,20,84,178
- Machine
- Soilmec SR-40 hydraulic piling rig
- Accident date
- March 2, 2013
- Accident location
- Bangriposi Ghat, Mayurbhanj district, Odisha
- Initial claim approval
- September 15, 2014
- Interest ordered
- 8% annually from September 2, 2013, rising to 12% for delayed payment after the deadline
- Payment deadline
- Within two months of the order
- Litigation costs
- Rs 50,000