HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6161 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.525 of 2016 titled Gurucharan Mica India Private Limited v. New India Assurance Company and Anr. 3. The aforesaid appeal was filed against an order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Lucknow in complaint No.131 of 2014 by the petitioner against New India Assurance Company claiming payment of insurance amount consequent to a fire that broke out in the petitioner's premises. The complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.10,82,394.45/- along with interest @ 12 % per month. The petitioner was awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid appeal for enhancement of the award awarded by the State Commission. 5. The opposite party No.1- New India Assurance Company Ltd had also filed an appeal bearing First Appeal No.785 of 2016 challenging the award of the State Commission which appeal has also been decided by the same judgment dated 30.04.2025 but the order passed in First Appeal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Mohit Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : Gurucharan Mica India Private Limited Thru. Managing Director Lko. .....Petitioner(s) National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) No.785 of 2016 has not been challenged by the appellants. 6. The order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that as per the assessment made by the surveyor, the petitioner had suffered a higher amount of loss and the surveyor report should be accepted and his entire claim should be awarded. 7. The opposite parties had challenged the surveyor's report inter alia on the grounds that it contains an incorrect assessment of under insurance, the surveyor has arbitrarily assessed the cost of machinery at Rs.2.32 crores and applied 50% depreciation without disclosing the source or date of valuation, an amount of Rs.49.70 lakhs was illegally added by including unrelated fittings and installments and after correcting these mistakes, the value stands decreased. 8. The State Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 507 and Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine 818. The Commission has held that :- "15 On reporting of the fire incident and loss. OP caused for survey by a duly qualified surveyor, who filed a report dated 15.01.2016 The detailed survey report covered all aspects of the scope of the policy and the loss occasioned and determined the adjusted loss, after considering the under insurance, as Rs 98.04.179. This was subject to deduction under Excess Clause @ 5% of the claim or Rs 10,000 whichever is more Clearly, the said Rs 98 04.179 determined as loss was subject to deduction under standard Excess Clause stipulated within the policy in question is @ 5% of the claim or Rs 10.000 whichever is more. That is to say, the amount of Rs 98.04, 179 so determined needs to be adjusted by @5% of the claim or Rs. 10.000 whichever is more. The claim made by the complainant is Rs 1,92.70.421 Therefore, 5% of this amount is liable to be deducted under Excess Clause which is Rs 9,63,521 Thus, the final amount payable is Rs 98,04,179 Rs 9,63,521 Rs.88,40,658 It is undisputed that OP had settled the claim for Rs 87,21,785. Therefore, the order of the learned State Commission dated 17.02 2016 directing OP to pay Rs 10,82,394 45 to the complainant within two months, and as compensation for damages allowed interest @ 12% per annum from 03.05.2013 till the actual date of payment is untenable being excessive in A227 No. 6161 of 2025 2 granting the relief. The said order is, therefore, modified as under:" 9. The National Commission has modified the order passed by the State commission and has directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,18,873/- to the complainant as balance of the claim amount. 10. The aforesaid order passed by the National Commission is a well reasoned order which does not appear to be perverse. 11. In absence of any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the National Commission, this Court cannot interfere in the same in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 6161 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench