NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GURBAKSH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 05.07.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 480/2007, "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Dr. Gurbaksh Chaudhary", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 31.01.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, allowing the consumer complaint no. 119/2006, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Dr. Gurbaksh Chaudhary got installed a C.T. Scan machine at his diagnostic centre at Pathankot, Punjab and the said machine was purchased through finance from the Punjab National Bank in the year 2002, and got insured with the petitioner Insurance Company, vide Policy No. 361600-44-02-0010 from 16.07.2002 to 15.07.2003, for which a sum of Rs. 1,18,338/- was paid to the petitioner as premium. The Policy was renewed vide cover note No. 230187 for the period 16.07.2003 to 15.07.2004, with sum insured of Rs. 50 lakhs and the premium charged was Rs. 56,700/-. It has been stated in the complaint that the said machine broke down in March 2004. The complainant informed the petitioner in writing on 08.03.2004, but the petitioner did not keep the intimation letter with them and advised the complainant to attach the estimate of repairs alongwith the letter. The complainant then contacted the engineers of JAP Imaging Solutions, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 09.03.20004, who inspected the machine on 10.03.2004 and gave an estimate of loss/repairs for a sum of Rs. 7,70,000/-. On 11.03.2004, the complainant sent the claim letter alongwith report of estimated loss and it was handed over to the Divisional Manager of the petitioner company, who gave the remarks that the exact date of the visit of Engineer should be intimated to them, so that they could call and send the surveyor accordingly. The engineers of the company visited the premises on 14.03.2004 and an intimation to this effect was given telephonically to the petitioner, but they did not depute any surveyor till 28.03.2004. Their surveyor Anil Kumar Dhir, visited the premises on 28.03.2004, and all information, papers and reports were made available to him. Thereafter, letters were written to the Insurance Company from time to time, giving full details of the case. The petitioner Company, however, sent a letter to them on 06.05.2005, saying that the surveyor's report had been received and the claim was being processed, but still, nothing was paid. It has further been stated in the complaint that at the time of the visit of surveyor, the new parts as well as the replaced parts of the machine was shown to him. The surveyor wanted that the defective parts should be put-back in the machine to see the faulty operation, but it was explained to him by the engineers of the repairing company that the machine being very sensitive, the old parts could not be re-inserted in the machine. The complainant put forward a claim for payment of Rs. 7,70,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. with effect from 28.03.2005. However, on the failure of the Insurance Company to pay the same, the consumer complaint in question, was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide their order dated 31.01.2007, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,10,830/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a. with effect from 15.05.2005. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order and the order passed by the District Forum was upheld. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company stated that the complainant have not cooperated with the surveyor during his visit to the premises and the said surveyor had no occasion to see the damage done to the machine. As per the report given by the surveyor, the damage was to the tune of '2.55 lakh. The surveyor has brought out in his report that the year of manufacture of the CT scan machine as mentioned in the Insurance Policy is 1999 whereas the said machine was found manufactured in the year 1987. As per the valuation report of M/s. Sanjeev Gupta and Associates, the cost of the machine was only