1 hr ago
Commission Orders New India Assurance To Pay Victorinox ₹8.06 Crore
A fire damaged Victorinox India’s warehouse in 2019.
The company had fire insurance from New India Assurance.
An insurance-appointed expert calculated the damage at about ₹8.06 crore.
The insurer later refused to pay, saying some documents had not been submitted.
Victorinox said it had provided the requested documents and answered the expert’s questions.
A Mumbai consumer commission reviewed the case.
It said the insurer rejected the claim unfairly on technical grounds.
The commission ordered the insurer to pay the assessed loss with 9% interest.
It also ordered payments for mental distress and legal costs.
A Mumbai consumer commission ordered New India Assurance to pay Victorinox India ₹8,06,49,573 for a 2019 warehouse fire.
The customs bonded warehouse was destroyed by fire on February 16, 2019, damaging goods stored there.
An insurer-appointed surveyor assessed the net loss at ₹8,06,49,573 after inspecting the site and reviewing documents.
New India Assurance rejected the claim in January 2021, citing missing internal agreements and invoices under policy conditions.
The commission called the rejection mechanically based on technical grounds and awarded 9% interest, ₹50,000 for mental distress, and ₹50,000 in litigation costs.
- Who
- Victorinox India, a wholly owned subsidiary of Victorinox AG, and New India Assurance Company were involved in the dispute.
- What
- A Mumbai consumer commission ordered the insurer to pay ₹8,06,49,573 for a rejected fire-insurance claim, plus interest and costs.
- Where
- The fire occurred at Victorinox India’s customs bonded warehouse in Mumbai.
- When
- The fire occurred on February 16, 2019; the claim was rejected in January 2021; and the commission’s order was passed on September 2.
- Why
- The commission found that the claim was rejected on technical or procedural grounds even though the insurer-appointed surveyor had assessed the loss and the company had supplied requested documents.
Victorinox India’s Position
New India Assurance’s Position
Validity of the claim
Victorinox India’s Position
Victorinox India maintained that the warehouse fire caused the claimed loss and that it supplied documents and answered the surveyor’s questions.
New India Assurance’s Position
New India Assurance rejected the claim in January 2021, citing non-submission of specified internal agreements and invoices under the policy conditions.
Technical compliance
Victorinox India’s Position
The company’s position, accepted by the commission, was that the claim should not be rejected after the insurer-appointed surveyor assessed the loss and no substantive disagreement was shown.
New India Assurance’s Position
The insurer relied on procedural or documentary requirements when repudiating the claim; the commission found that reliance legally unsustainable and unfair.
Key facts
- Insured company
- Victorinox India Pvt Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Switzerland-based Victorinox AG
- Insurer
- New India Assurance Company
- Insurance policy
- Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy
- Fire date
- February 16, 2019
- Assessed net loss
- ₹8,06,49,573
- Interest
- 9% from the date the complaint was filed
- Additional awards
- ₹50,000 for mental distress and ₹50,000 in litigation costs; payment was directed within 45 days
- Document discrepancy
- One account cites policy Clause 6(i), while the commission quotation in another cites Clause 6(b)
Quotes
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South Mumbai)
Consumer commission that adjudicated Victorinox India’s insurance dispute
“Once that assessment has been made regarding the loss/damage which took place due to fire and that was not disputed by either party, repudiating the claim invoking clause 6(b) of the policy, in our considered view, was unfair and is not legally sustainable”
livemint.com
“The insurance company's repudiation based solely on procedural non-compliance, in the absence of any substantive disagreement or fraudulent intent, was legally unsustainable.”
livemint.com
Sources
Related news
West Bengal Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Dacoity Claim
Consumer panel orders NIACL to pay Rs 3.60L for stolen truck claim
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Insurance Refund After Missing Terms
Kurnool Commission Orders HDFC ERGO To Pay ₹1 Crore
Hyderabad Commission Orders Refund in Insurance Mis-Selling Case
Inside Victorinox’s Swiss Watchmaking World and Concept One
Swiss Army Knife Maker Faces US Tariffs, Identity Crisis
