Kupwara’s Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has mandated Bajaj Allianz to pay close to Rs 10 lakh to a shop owner after ruling against the insurer’s refusal to honour a fire insurance claim, marking a series of recent judgments scrutinising insurer conduct in the district.
Kupwara’s Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to pay nearly Rs 10 lakh to a shop owner whose insured premises were destroyed in a fire, adding to a growing body of rulings in the district that have scrutinised how the insurer handles claims.
The case was brought by Ghulam Mohammad Shah, whose shop was gutted in a fire in 2017. According to the judgment, the shop was covered by a policy issued by Bajaj Allianz, but Shah said the company failed to honour the claim. The two-member bench, led by President Peerzada Qaiser Hussain and Member Judge Naila Yaseen, directed the insurer to pay Rs 5 lakh, the insured amount, plus 6% annual interest, Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 20,000 towards legal expenses.
Shah was represented by advocate Shabir Ahmad Bhat, who also heads the Bar Association. The commission’s order adds to a series of recent decisions from Kupwara in which the forum has taken a tough line on insurers accused of denying or undervaluing legitimate claims.
In August 2025, the same district commission found Bajaj Allianz liable for unfair trade practices after it declined to settle a genuine claim involving a TATA Sumo vehicle. In another August 2025 case, it again held the company responsible for failing to honour a motor insurance claim, stressing the need for prompt settlement where policyholders have submitted the required papers. More recently, in June 2026, the commission ruled that an insurer cannot rely only on a surveyor’s report to reject a fire claim unless there is independent evidence to support that decision.
Those rulings, together with the latest order, suggest the Kupwara forum is pushing insurers to justify repudiations with clearer proof and to compensate policyholders when it finds claims have been handled unfairly. In Shah’s case, the commission concluded that the fire loss was covered and that the company’s response warranted not only payment of the claim but also additional damages and costs.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
