1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 09.10.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 835/2012 in which order dated 22.05.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 459/2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the State Commission and to uphold the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the District Forum.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent   before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA/835/2012 and Opposite Party before the District Forum in Complaint No. 459/2009.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent on 31.05.2013.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 24.11.2017 (Petitioner) and 20.11.2017 (Respondent) respectively. 

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The petitioner got insured various electric machines lying in his shed no. 1 to 3 and spare motors which include generator set under the Machinery Insurance, which was valid from 19.02.2008 to 18.02.2009. On 03.07.2008 the Generator set of the Petitioner broke out and intimation was given to the Respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2008 Thereafter, the claim was registered and M/s Anand Associates was appointed as Surveyor for the assessment of the loss occurred due to breakdown in the Generator set. The surveyor visited the premises of the Petitioner and obtained the photos of damaged Generator set engine and also examined the Generator set and all the desired documents in original were submitted by the Petitioner to the surveyor. The surveyor told the Petitioner that he should call some technical expert for testing the Generator set and submit his testing report along with the estimate. On the request of the surveyor, one technical expert from Gulati Diesel, Karnal and authorised dealer of Cummins Sales and Service visited at the premises of the Petitioner on 05.07.2008, who thoroughly checked the damaged Generator set and advised that this Generator set needs thorough checking so it be sent at workshop at Karnal. Further, as per the advise of the Respondent, the Petitioner called Indian Mechanical Services Karnal for checking of Generator set who visited the premises of the Petitioner and after checking gave estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.4,81,900/- excluding sales tax and this estimate was subject to the condition of crank which was sent to the Testwell Engineers, New Delhi. As per the report of Test Well Engineer dated 05.07.2008, the crank is cracked and now it is of no use so it is to be changed and accordingly the quotation of new/changed crank was obtained from Gulati Diesel Karnal being authorised dealer of Cummins and as per quotation dated 16.07.2008 the estimated cost of damaged crank was shown as Rs.12,41,538.36 including Sales Tax. The quotation regarding estimate of repair of the Generator set was obtained from Gulati Diesel, Karnal who submitted the quotation of Rs.10,80,056.41 excluding the cost of new crank plus labour charges of Rs.87,360/- which comes to Rs.24,08,954.77 and the engine of Generator set was insured by the Respondent only for Rs.15,00,000/- and the estimated repairing cost was coming to the tune of Rs.24,08,954.77, if it was got repaired from M/s Gulati Diesel Karnal, Rs.17,23,438/- plus sales tax if it was got repaired from Indian Mechanical Services Karnal meaning thereby the cost of repair was above the insured amount of the engine of damaged Generator Set. The Petitioner was told by the Respondent that the estimate repair cost is above than the sum insured so the company is going to declare the engine of generator set as total loss and will pay Rs.15,00,000/- i.e. sum insured to the Petitioner within few days after completion of formalities and he should purchase new engine for the Generator set. After completion of formalities, the Petitioner was told that he will get cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- within few days but on 31.12.2008 he received a voucher of Rs.3,84,888/- from the Respondent as a part payment in lieu of compensation amount legally due from the Respondent company and after receiving the voucher as partial satisfaction and discharge claim amount, the Petitioner wrote a registered letter dated 09.02.2009 but to no effect. The Petitioner approached the Respondent and requested to pay the balanced amount of Rs.11,15,112/- which is legally due from the Respondent but the respondent put off the matter on  one pretext or the other and finally refused that the claim has already been settled by the Respondent in full and final to the tune of Rs.3,84,888/- instead of Rs.1500000/-. That the surveyor M/s Anand Associates submitted its report dated 16.11.2008 wherein he assessed the liability on total loss Basis. Hence, the Petitioner filed Complaint before the District Forum alleging thereto that there is a deficiency in service by the Respondent on account of not releasing the entire insured/claim of the Generator set in question.

5.         Vide Order dated 22.05.2012, in the CC 459/2009 the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.7,61,170/- along with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of survey report till its realization and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 22.05.2012 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 09.10.2012 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.   

7.         Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 09.10.2012 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. order passed by the State Commission is erroneous as it has failed to take into consideration the evidence and facts brought on record and has passed the impugned order. The order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside and the order of the Learned District Forum is entitled to be upheld.  The State Commission, while passing the impugned order dated 09.10.2012, had totally overlooked the Machinery Breakdown Insurance Policy. As per the insurance policy, in case of total loss, the company will pay the actual value of the item immediately before the occurrence of the loss. The provision of "Basis of Indemnity" of the insurance policy is reproduced for perusal "2. Basis of Indemnity: (b) In cases where an insured item is destroyed, the Company will pay the actual value of the item immediately before the occurrence of the loss including costs for ordinary freight erection and customs duties if any provided such expenses have been included in the sum insured, such actual value to be calculated by deducting proper depreciation from the replacement value of the item. The company will also pay any normal charges for the dismantling of the machinery destroyed but the salvage will be taken into account...." The surveyor of the insurance company has also observed in its report dated 16.11.2008 that the new replacement value of the Generator set as Rs.22,92,116/-, thus after deducting proper depreciation i.e. 50% in the present case as observed by the District Forum, the Petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs.11,46,058.00 whereas the Respondent company paid an amount of Rs.3,84,888/- to the Complainant, therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.7,61,170/- more from the Respondent company.

2. The State Commission, while passing the impugned order dated had failed to understand the provision of "Basis of Indemnity Clause" of the Machinery Breakdown Insurance Policy. The surveyor has wrongly and irrationally applied the depreciation on the sum assured of Rs.15,00,000/- while assessing the loss whereas as per the term of "Basis of indemnity" the proper depreciation from the replacement value of the item i.e. Rs.22,92,116/- was required to be calculated. Thus, the Surveyor report could not have been relied upon as the same being against the basis of Contract i.e. terms and conditions of the policy.

(iii) The State Commission had wrongly observed the value of the machinery as Insured Declared Value (IDV) to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. The sum insured of the machinery under the Machinery Break Down Insurance Policy is not an Insured Declared Value rather it is the cost of replacement of the insured property by a new property of the same kind and same capacity which shall mean its replacement cost including freight and custom duties, if any and erection costs as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties. The State Commission failed to consider even the factual matrix of the case and has given finding beyond the pleadings and evidence on record. The Generator set of the complainant broke down during working, while theState Commission had wrongly observed that the fire took place in the premises of the complainant as a result of which the DG set suffered damage whereas no fire ever took place in the premises of the Petitioner. Therefore, the order of theState Commission being misconceived, erroneous and beyond the pleadings, is liable to be set aside and the order of the District Forum is entitled to be upheld.

(iv) The impugned order suffers from illegalities and infirmities and the same has further been rendered in utter disregard to the facts, term & conditions of the insurance policy and circumstances of the present case. The terms and conditions of the contract are to be adhered strictly. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC)=IV (2009) SLT 35=JT 2009 (5) SC 579 in which it has been held that "15. An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. In a contract of insurance, there is requirement of uberimma fides i.e. good faith on the part of the insured. Except that, in other respects, there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract. The four essentials of a contract of insurance are, (i) the definition of the risk, (ii) the duration of the risk, (iii) the  premium, and (iv) the amount of insurance. Since upon issuance of insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The endeavor of the Court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The Court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in re-writing the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy [General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1644, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan, (1999) 6 SCC 451 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644]." The Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the above said order has relied upon the judgement of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1644 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "B. Insurance Act, 1938 Insurance Deed construction Court should interpret the words in which contract is expressed by parties - Not for court to make a new contract if the parties have not made it themselves." The order of the State commission being devoid of any sanctity of law is liable to be set aside in the interest of law, equity and circumstances of the case as the same amounts to re-writing the terms of the contract which the parties have not made themselves.

8.         Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para No. 7) the  Petitioner contended that the petitioner got insured various electric machines including generator set under the Machinery Insurance vide policy which was valid from 19.02.2008 to 18.02.2009. On 03.07.2008 the Generator set of the petitioner broke out and intimation was given to the respondent vide letter dated 03.07.2008. Surveyor was appointed for the assessment of the loss occurred due to breakdown in the Generator set. The necessary formalities were completed by the petitioner. But the petitioner's efforts for the settlement of his claim turned futile and therefore he was compelled to approach the District Forum. On 05.07.2008 one technical expert from Gulati Diesel, Karnal and authorised dealer of Cummins Sales and Service visited the premises of the petitioner who thoroughly checked the damaged Generator set & advised that Generator set need thorough checking & it be sent at workshop. Further, as per advise of Respondent the petitioner called Indian Mechnical Services Karnal for checking of Generator set who visited the premises of the petitioner and after checking gave estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.4,81,900/- excluding sales tax and this estimate was subject to the condition of crank which was sent to Testwell Engineers, New Delhi. As per the report of Test Well Engineer dated 05.07.2008 wherein it was mentioned that the crank is cracked & now it is of no use so it is to be changed & accordingly the quotation of new crank was obtained from Gulati Diesel, Karnal being authorised dealer of Cummins and as per quotation dated 16.07.2008, the estimated cost of damaged crank was shown as Rs.12,41,538.36 including Sales Tax. The quotation regarding estimate of repair of Generator set was obtained from Gulati Diesel who submitted quotation of Rs.10,80,056.41 excluding cost of new crank plus labor charges of Rs.87,360/- which comes to Rs.24,08,954.77 and Generator set was insured by Respondent only for Rs.15,00,000/- and estimated repairing cost was coming to the tune of Rs.24,08,954.77 meaning thereby the cost of repair was above the insured amount of the engine of damaged Generator set. The petitioner was told by the respondent that the estimate repair cost is above than the sum insured so the company is going to declare the engine of generator set as total loss and will pay Rs.15,00,000/- i.e. sum insured to the petitioner within few days, but on 31.12.2008 he received a voucher of Rs.3,84,888/- from the respondent as a part payment in lieu of compensation amount legally due towards the respondent company and after receiving the voucher as partial satisfaction and discharge claim amount the petitioner wrote a registered letter dated 09.02.2009 but to no effect. The petitioner approached the respondent and requested to pay the balanced amount of Rs.11,15,112/- which is legally due towards the respondent but the respondent put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused that the claim has been already settled by the respondent in full and final to the tune of Rs.3,84,888/- instead of Rs. 15,00,000/-. that the respondents totally disregarded the terms and conditions of the policy in question in making the payment to the petitioner for the loss suffered as according to the insurance policy, in case of total loss, the company will pay the actual value of the item immediately before the occurrence of the loss. It is further contended that the surveyor of the insurance company has also observed in its report dated 16.11.2008 that the new replacement value of the Generator set as Rs.22,92,116/- thus after deducting proper depreciation i.e. 50% in the present case as observed by the District Forum, the petitioner was entitled to the amount of Rs.11,46,058.00, whereas the respondent company paid an amount of Rs.3,84,888/-to the complainant, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.7,61,170/- more from the respondent company.  In support of his contention, the Petitioner has relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission.

8.2       On the other hand, Respondent submitted that the award passed by the State Commission is rightly decided in favour of the Respondent. It is well settled principal of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that there is no reason to discard the Surveyor’s Report and has to be given due weights. So the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent and claim stands paid as per the surveyor's report and terms & conditions of the policy. The liability of the insurance company is always within the IDV/ Sum assured (Rs 15 lakhs only) as per policy as selected by the insured/ complainant itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission held in case titled "UIIC & Ors. Vs Roshan Lal Oil Mils Ltd. reported in 2000(10) SCC 19, and D.N Badori Vs OIC, 2012 (CPJ) 271 NC, held that a Surveyor Report has a significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise. The Surveyor's Report and calculations/ assessed the loss on the amount for which the premium is received is. Rs.15,00,000/- and not on the value which was provided by insured as new invoice of new engine Rs.22,91,116/-as is questioned and is based on IDV. The estimate of M/s Indian Mechanical Service, Karnal was received for a loss of Rs.4,81,900/- where the part Crankshaft Repair Cost was claimed.  The insured later provided an estimate where it claimed the new crankshaft of Gen set in question which as per quotation of M/s Gulati diesel service Karnal is Rs.12,41,538/-(cost of Crank shaft) plus the other items as claimed above and worked separately on the crankshaft as part with new one under para 12 of survey assessment report dated 16.11.2008. Since the liability of underwriter can not exceed the IDV so the total loss of Gen set was again calculated with depreciation and average clause and policy excess class as stipulated in accordance with the policy condition. The average clause is calculated on sum insured divided by new market replacement value which is worked out as 0.654 as per para 10 of Surveyor Report.  The loss has been assessed on the amount for which the premium is received is Rs. 15,00,000/- and not on the value which was provided by insured as new invoice of new engine Rs.22,91,116/- as is questioned by this Commission. The calculation on the basis of 3rd option due to IDV, however, on the new replacement value of whole engine if worked out will be ‘Cost of new Engine: Rs.22,91,116/- Depreciation 50%.: Rs. 1145558/- (-) Salvage with old and new Serviceable parts like engine block etc. Rs 3,50,000/- Balance.: Rs.7,95,558/- (-) Average clause factor 0.654 Rs.5,20,294.93 (-) Excess clause 1% of sum insured. Rs. 15,000/ Total Assessed: Rs. 5,05,294/-. It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on part of respondent hence, the Petition, in the interest of justice, be dismissed and no relief can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case.

9.         The D.G. set in question, which was insured from 19.02.2008 to 18.02.2009 for Rs.15.00 Lakh (IDV) along with other machineries of the Complainant; was 2000 model, fire took place in 2008, OP Insurance Company calculated the depreciated value of IDV and worked out the net loss at Rs.3,85,000/- plus the salvage value of Rs.3,50,000/- (Total Rs.7,35,000/-, paid an amount of Rs.3,84,888/-, as full and final settlement, which was received by the Complainant.  The replacement cost of DG set was Rs.22,92,116/-.  The Complainant contends that depreciation has to be taken as 50% of the total cost and not the IDV of Rs.15.00 Lakh.  As the estimated repair cost (Rs.24,08,954/-) of the damaged Engine was more than the IDV and repairing the engine was not found to be cost effective, hence, the loss was assessed on ‘Total loss basis’.  Although the Complainant received the amount of Rs.3,84,888/- and signed the discharge voucher dated 31.12.2008, but immediately wrote a letter dated 31.12.2008/09.01.2009 (Annexure C-6 before the District Forum) to the Opposite Party Insurance Company to make payment of balance claim.  This was followed by another reminder dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure C-7 before the District Forum).  The District Forum after considering the facts of the case, evidence adduced before it and rival contentions of the parties, observed as follows:

“7. From the perusal of aforesaid arguments we are of the considered view that the complainant got insured his Generator set with the respondent to the total insured value of Rs.15,00,000/- and the surveyor of the insurance company has assessed the cost of new generator set to the tune of Rs.22,92,116/- as is clear from Note made at serial No.11 of Ex. R-2 which may be read as under:

Note: The crank shaft repair was allowed however the x ray of the damaged      

crankshaft as is confirmed to us got internal damage to metal and it is beyond repair and the cost of new crank shaft is quoted Rs.12,41,538 so the loss therefore will fall on the total loss basis as the engine is under insured for Rs. 15,00,000/- as against the cost of Rs.22,92,116/-.

According to Ex. R-6 i.e. standard policy form regarding machinery break down insurance policy following provisions have been made at serial No.1 and 2(B):

1. SUM INSURED

It is the requirement of this insurance that the sum insured shall be equal to the cost of replacement of the insured property by new property of the same kind and same capacity which shall mean its replacement cost including freight and customs duties, if any, and erection costs.

2(b) BASIS OF INDEMNITY-

In cases where an insured item is destroyed, the Company will pay the actual value of the item immediately before the occurrence of the loss including costs for ordinary freight erection and customs duties if any provided such expenses have been included in the sum insured, such actual value to be calculated by deducting proper depreciation from the replacement value of the item. The Company will also pay any normal charges for the dismantling of the machinery destroyed but the salvage will be taken into account.

9. From the perusal of above provision it is clear that the company will pay the actual value of the item by replacing new property of same kind and same capacity after reducing the depreciation value. In the present case the surveyor of the insurance company has assessed the cost of new generator set to the tune of Rs.22,92,116/- as is clear from below Note made at serial No.11 of Ex. R-2.

If the depreciation value on account of total loss basis is worked out at the rate of 50% then the cost of new generator set would become Rs.11,46,058/- after reducing the depreciation value. Besides this the complainant has never stated that he would keep the salvage of generator set with him and there is no record on the file to prove that the complainant has received the full and final payment rather he has written a letter to the respondent regarding release of balance payment on receipt of partial payment of Rs.3,84,888/-. The authority Bushan Sttels and Strips Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Itd. case (supra) tendered by the complainant is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case but the judgment tendered by the respondent is not identical to the facts and circumstances of the case. So in these circumstances as per provision of the term and condition of the policy the complainant is entitled to get relief 50% of the total cost of new generator set amounting to Rs. 22,92,116/- which becomes to the tune of Rs.11,46,058/-  - Rs.3,84,888/- (already paid) = Rs.7,61,170/- (balance payable). Hence it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of respondent for settling the claim of complainant and the complainant is entitled to get balance amount of Rs.7,61,170/-.

10. Resultantly we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7,61,170/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the surveyor report to till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant is also directed to handover the salvage to the respondent at the time of receiving the claim amount from the respondent. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.”

10.       The State Commission, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum has observed as follows:

“From the perusal of record it is not disputed that the entire machinery of complainant including DG set was insured by the opposite party against break down. The DG set was insured for Rs.15,00,000/-. Fire taking place in the premises of the Complainant the DG set suffered damage. The complainant getting its repair estimated at Rs.24,00,000/-, the opposite party agreed on total loss basis. Its depreciated value was worked out at Rs.3,50,000/- by taking 50% as depreciation at Rs.7,61,170/-. The opposite party paid Rs.3,85,000/- to the complainant and the balance was taken as salvage value permitting the complainant to retain the salvage. Complainant had received Rs.3,85,000/- is not disputed. Complainant has disputed the formula of working out stating that the depreciation has to be taken as 50% of the total cost and not the IDV of Rs.15,00,000/-. The cost of DG set was Rs.22,92,116/-. It is not disputed that DG set was 2000 model, while fire took place in the year 2008, therefore the opposite party calculated the depreciated value of IDV and worked out the net loss at Rs.3,85,000/- plus salvage value. Even the surveyor has also worked out the same value. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual controversy involved in this case and committed error while accepting the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with the observation that the complainant is at liberty to retain the salvage.”

11.       We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The main issue for consideration is whether the depreciation is to be calculated on the IDV, as has been done by the Insurance Co. and accepted by the State Commission, or on the total cost (replacement cost) as has been demanded by the Complainant and accepted by the District Forum.  A perusal of the Insurance Policy shows that it covers various electric machines and inventory of the property insured has been given, which contains description and details of each item covered along with sum assured.  District Forum has relied upon following clause of the Policy on the sum insured:

“1. SUM  INSURED

It is the requirement of this insurance that the sum insured shall be equal to the cost of replacement of the insured property by new property of the same kind and same capacity which shall mean its replacement cost including freight and customs duties, if any, and erection costs.”

However, the Insurance Company has contended that terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be read as a whole and relied upon following clause of the policy regarding basis for indemnity:

“2. BASIS OF INDEMNITY-

xxxx

b) In cases where an insured item is destroyed, the Company will pay the actual value of the item immediately before the occurrence of the loss including costs for ordinary freight erection and customs duties if any provided such expenses have been included in the sum insured, such actual value to be calculated by deducting proper depreciation from the replacement value of the item.  The Company will also pay any normal charges for the dismantling of the machinery destroyed but the salvage will be taken into account.

xxxx”

Surveyor in its report has mentioned that:

• “In the previous breakdown on 22.05.07. The Engine is repaired by the Indian Mechanical services Karnal where in the crank grinding was done and Piston, rings etc. were replaced as per the details of bills enclosed where spare part cost is 3,42,134 & Labour cost is 81100/-.

•  In the breakdown claimed under above policy the initial estimate was provided by M/S Indian Mechanical services for Rs.4,81,900/- where the crank shaft repair is claimed but later detected that the crank shaft is beyond repairs and therefore the new supplementary quotation of crank shaft is submitted.”

xxxx

DEPRECIATION

xxxx

12. Assessment on repair basis with supplementary estimate of crank shaft:

              (13)   ASSESSED ON TOTAL LOSS BASES (with insured value of Engine).

LIABILITY:

1. On Repair bases where the crank shaft repair is calculated                        Rs.1,10,525/-

2. On replacement of crank shaft                                                         Rs. 7,45,056/-

3. On total loss with IDV of insured engine                                         Rs. 385000/-”

12.       We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, Surveyor’s report, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The DG set was of 2000 Model, insured with IDV of Rs.15.00 Lakh from 19.02.2008 to 18.02.2009.  The breakdown happened on 03.07.2008.  During the hearing the Petitioner was not able to show any documents like purchase bill etc. relating to D.G. set in question, which will show its date of purchase and original purchase price.  Demand of complainant that depreciation be calculated @50% of the replacement cost which is Rs.22,92,116/- i.e. Rs.11,46,058/- is not justified.  State Commission has given valid reasons for accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum.  We are in agreement with the findings of State Commission.  Hence, the order of State Commission    is upheld.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

13.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.