EMCO LTD Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in MA no. 16/376 in CC no. 16/ 708.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the appellant are that in the year 2009 the appellant company had entered into a contract for erection and commissioning of a 160 MVA Transformer with M/s Delhi Transco Ltd., at pre-fabricated build, Rajghat Power House and were issued with a letter of award. The appellant obtained an erection and all risks insurance policy bearing no. 222100/ 44/ 09/ 44/ 400000005 from the respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company which was valid from 25.05.2009 to 24.12.2010. It was further extended from 24.12.2010 to 24.06.2011. The assembly erection of the transformer was completed and the transformer testings were carried out. After testing of the transformer was completed and the switch yards were ready for commissioning in March 2011. On 01.04.2011 an MOU was entered between the appellant and the respondent/ insurance company for all the insurance policies issued by the respondent between 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. On 12.05.2011 during the commissioning of the transformer, there was a short circuit, due to which the transformer failed and tripped at 18.03 hours. The said information was given to the respondent on 13.05.2011. The surveyor submitted his final report on 12.06.2012. The respondent on 05.12.2013 repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that as per the survey report the transformer was duly tested successfully in August 2010 and it had failed at the time of commissioning after three months of testing. Thus, the kind of fault would not fall under the purview of the policy. The appellant thus filed an appeal no. 708 of 2016 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in July 2016 along with an MA no. 376 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The State Commission while dismissing the application for condonation of delay observed as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the delay of 217 days was not intentional and should have been condoned. He further contended that in another case titled as EMCO VS The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (CC no. 459 of 2016) decided on 27.09.2016 the State Commission had condoned the delay of 134 days but had declined to condone the delay of 217 days in the present case.