NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs M/S. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD.

Appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 28.02.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji-Goa(for short, ''State Commission'') in Complaint No.04 of 2004, has filed present appeal. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 18 days has been filed.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay is condoned.

Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant insured a ''Furnace Transformer'' with appellant from 14.01.2003 to 13.01.2004 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is stated, that on 02.09.2003 the said transformer became non-functional after an explosion and oozing out of oil resulting in tripping of power supply. A surveyor was appointed, who prepared his preliminary report.

On 11.09.2003, respondent submitted machinery breakdown claim form and also enclosed an offer of ''M/s. Dalvi Transformers and Services'', Vadodara, a licenced electrical contractor, giving estimate of repairs as Rs.7,80,000/-. Thereafter, appellant deputed Mr. M.R. Shenvi, Chartered Engineer of Panaji, to prepare final report in respect of the loss. The appellant did not take any action for three weeks from the date of accident, as a result of which manufacturing process of respondent came to a grinding halt. Thereafter, respondent dispatched the said transformers to M/s. Dalvi at Vadodara for repairs. However, they informed that there was no

guarantee about smooth functioning of the transformer even after its repairs and they sent back the same. Since, difference between the cost of repair and price of new transformer was not substantial, respondent purchased a new transformer for Rs.10,85,760/-, which was commissioned on 29.09.2003.

On 02.04.2004, respondent was informed by the appellant, that their claim had been settled at Rs.2,33,062/- and asked for bills for repairs. Respondent did not agree to aforesaid offer. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant, respondent filed consumer complaint before the State Commission, seeking to pay a sum of Rs.10,85,760/- towards the cost of new transformer, Rs.12,15,000/- as compensation towards business loss and Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of reputation along with interest @ 15% p.a.

Appellant in its written statement has admitted, that respondent has informed it about the incident. Immediately, appellant deputed its surveyor, Mr. M.N. Khandeparkar who visited the site on 03.09.20003 for assessment of loss. The surveyor found, that transformer was partially dismantled but no damage was evident. Therefore, surveyor instructed the respondent to forward a claim from and detailed estimate of repairs before initiating any repairs. The surveyor also instructed the respondent, to inform him of visit of the repairer in order to carry out joint inspection of the dismantled transformer so as to ascertain the exact cause and the nature of damages. Thereafter, on 11.09.2003 respondent submitted the claim form and estimated cost of repairs as Rs. 7,80,000/-. By letter dated 25.09.2003, respondents informed the appellant regarding its decision to purchase new transformer. In fact, respondent had already ordered for new transformer on 15.09.2003. Mr. M.N. Khandeparkar, Surveyor submitted his loss assessment report on presumption, that damage must have occurred due to short circuit and assessed the liability of the appellant at Rs.2,33,062/-. Appellant offered the said amount in settlement, but same was not accepted by the respondent. Hence, there is no deficiency on its part.

Initially, the matter was heard by Bench comprising of Two Members of the State Commission. On 28.02.2008, the Members gave dissenting orders. Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia, found the complainant guilty of lapses and as such dismissed the complaint but as appellant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,33,062/-, it directed the appellant to pay the said amount within 30 days, failing which it awarded interest @ 10% p.a.

On the other hand, other Member Smt. Caroline Collasso, partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,65,000/- along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till full realization within 30 days.

Since, there was a difference of opinion between the two members, therefore matter was placed before Justice D.G. Deshpande, President, State Commission. The President, vide its order dated 24.02.2010, concurred with the order of Smt. Caroline Collasso. It directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- to the respondent along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filling of the complaint till full realization within 30 days. In addition, appellant was directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.

Hence, this appeal.

Despite due service of notice of the present appeal upon the respondent, he did not appear. This Commission vide order dated 28.09.2010, observed;

" We have reason to believe that the respondents are not interested in defending the appeal ."

Thereafter, again notice was issued to the respondent by Registered Post. Despite service, respondent did not appear. Hence, on 23.07.2015, it was proceeded exparte.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.

The factum of insurance and damage caused to the transformer, is not in dispute. The only question involved in this appeal is as to whether quantum of damages awarded in favour of the respondent are excessive or not.

Mr. M. N. Khandeparkar, Surveyor of appellant has assessed the liability of the appellant as Rs. 2,33,062/-. Appellant, thereafter asked respondent to submit the bills/receipts for repairs of the transformer for settlement of the claim, which respondent declined to accept.

Mr. M. N. Khandeparkar, Surveyor in its report dated 08.09.2003, has categorically stated; " On preliminary inspection, it was confirmed that the primary windings had shorted. It was difficult to ascertain, whether one limb of the primary winding is affected, or whether both the limbs had failed. Same could be ascertained only on dismantling. Cost of rewinding of a single limb is approx. Rs.3,50,000/-. Thus, the cost of repairs is expected to be within Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- ."

When surveyor in its report itself has stated. that the cost of repairs for transformer is expected to be between Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-, then the amount of Rs.5,65,000/- as awarded by the State Commission is fully justified and reasonable. No fault can be found on this count, in view of the impugned order.

Thus, from the examination above, it is clear that reasonings of the State Commission are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and present appeal having no legal force, is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.