NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGER Vs. ABROL ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD THROUGH VEVEK ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal bearing No. 887 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant Company and directed New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") to pay an amount of Rs. 10,89,717/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant Company took an Insurance Policy from 12.12.2011 to 11.12.2012 for its C.N.C. Machine for an insured sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-. While so, on 17.10.2012 at about 11 a.m. abnormal noise started emanating from the spindle and the service engineer of M/s DMG Deckel Maho Gildemister (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the officials of the Insurance Company were informed. The engineer of the said Company who is the authorized manufacturer of the machine visited the premises on 20.10.2012 and observed in the presence of the surveyor that the spindle was damaged and recommended that the spindle had to be replaced. It was averred that the spindle is not repairable in India. M/s DMG Mori Seiki India sent the quotation for supply of the said spindle. It was averred that an amount of Rs. 10,80,717/- was paid for the spindle and the claim was made to the Insurance Company on 21.11.2012. All the documents were given to the surveyor namely Mr. S.K. Mittal. Further information was also supplied vide letter dated 18.12.2012. Proportionate freight spent for the import of the spindle was also paid and the same was informed to the Insurance Company on 11.12.2012. The Company had written registered letters on 01.01.2013, 04.01.2013 and 24.01.2013 for settlement of the claim but the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter dated 24.01.2013 on the ground that the surveyor had not submitted his report. Hence the Complaint seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay the following amounts:-

(2.) The Insurance Company filed their Written Version stating that the Complainant purchased the said machine for commercial purpose; that the alleged loss occurred due to wear and tear which is outside the scope of the policy as mentioned in Special Exclusion to Section 1; surveyor visited the premises on 20.10.2012 and submitted preliminary survey report dated 23.10.2012 and the damage to the machine was inspected in the presence of Mr. Vivek Abrol, Director and it was found during the joint inspection that the abnormal noise in the spindle was because of vibration in the tool box; the report dated 20.10.2012 of Sh. Gurdeep Singh clearly depicted the true facts and so the second report given by him cannot be relied upon and hence their repudiation is justified.

(3.) The District Forum based on the evidence adduced dismissed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same observing as follows:-