1.      This revision petition has been filed by petitioner/complainant, M/s Real Ispat & Power Ltd. against the order dated 01.04.2015 of the Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”).

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner availed general insurance under the name of machinery breakdown policy from the respondent No.3/OP No.3 which included electrical transformer installed in the factory premises.  The said policy bearing No.153600/44/2010/4 dated 4.5.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 was valid from 4.5.2009 to 3.5.2010. The said electrical transformer of Kirloskar Company of 2000 K.V.A. installed in the factory premises of the petitioner/complainant broke down on 1.5.2010.  The insurance claim was preferred by the petitioner. However, the same was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the transformer number mentioned in the policy was 90P06002, whereas the transformer actually damaged was bearing No.99P0G002.

3.      The complainant filed a consumer complaint i.e. Case No.1000/2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, (in short “the District Forum”), which passed the following order on 11.04.2014:-

“7.  Thus, on basis of the aforesaid discussion, complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is partially allowed and it is ordered that, jointly and severally, within a month of the date of the order:

(a)       Opposite parties shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,02,810/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten) from 27.09.2011 till the date of payment with interest at the rate of 12% per annum;

(b)      Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant for mental agony due to the aforesaid acts;

(c)      Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant for advocate fees and litigation expenses.”

4.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred Appeal No.FA/14/318 before the State Commission, which vide its order dated 01.04.2015 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:-

“13.  In light of the aforesaid case laws, in this case Kirloskar transformer of 2000 K.V.A manufactured in year 2003 of the Respondent/Complainant having Serial No.90P06002 was insured with the Appellants/Opposite Parties, whereas, the complaint has been filed with respect to transformer of Respondent/Complainant having Serial No.99P0G002 which was not insured with the Appellants/Opposite Parties.  Thus no insurance was made of the Kirloskar transformer having Serial No.99P0G002.  In this situation, Respondent/Complainant is not entitled for any compensation with respect to the said transformer.

14.  Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is not liable to be upheld and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

15.      Thus, appeal filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties is allowed.  Impugned order dated 11.04.2014 passed by District Forum is set aside.  Accordingly, the Complaint is also dismissed. In light of the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own expenses.”

5.      Hence the revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that due to inadvertent error in typing a slightly different number of transformer was printed in the proposal (90P06002) whereas, the actual number of the transformer was 99P0G002.  The complainant has only one transformer and that is of Kirloskar make as is mentioned in the policy.  There is no question of having any other transformer within the factory premises.  The claim has been repudiated by the insurer only on the ground of this technicality that the transformer number mentioned in the policy and the actual number differ slightly.  The fact is that the complainant has been insuring the same machine with the same insurer for the previous years also and the numbers are typed by the clerk in the office, who made this inadvertent error.  No dishonest intention has been attributed to the complainant by the opposite parties.  It is very unlikely to have two transformers of very similar numbers in the same premises.  The opposite parties have not produced any evidence that the complainant had more than one transformer of 2000 K.V.A. and of Kirloskar make.  The District Forum has critically examined all the evidence adduced by both the parties and has allowed the claim of the complainant.  The State Commission has wrongly accepted the arguments of the insurer and has allowed the appeal on the ground that the actual damaged transformer bearing No.99P0G002 was not insured.

8.      The learned counsel also stated that though the insurance is a contract and its contents cannot be interpreted beyond whatever is actually written, the typographical mistakes or inadvertent errors can always be taken cognizance of by the Courts in the interest of justice. 

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that insurance is a contract and has to be interpreted as per the contents of this contract what is insured is clearly written in the policy.  The insured transformer is the one bearing No.90P06002 in the policy in question valid from 04.05.2009 to 03.05.2010.   It is not correct to say that the same number is appearing in the previous policies for the period from 31.01.2006 to 30.01.2007.  The transformer number mentioned is 99P06002.  The number mentioned in the policy starting from 05.05.2010 is 99P0G002.  It has been alleged by learned counsel that the complainant may be having more than one transformer, but the Insurance Company is liable only for the transformer, which is insured with Insurance Company.  

10.    Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the policy schedule clearly mentioned the number of the transformer as 90P06002 with manufacturing year 2003, whereas the actual damaged transformer bears the number 99P0G002 with manufacturing year as 1999.  The District Forum had wrongly accepted the claim of the petitioner and had allowed a claim of Rs.702,810/-, whereas the surveyor in his report dated 05.08.2010 had assessed the loss as Rs.3 lakhs only.  The surveyor has clearly mentioned in his report that the number and manufacturing year of transformer does not match with policy schedule.

11.    We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records.  It is admitted that one transformer of Kirloskar make and of 2000 K.V.A. was insured.  The complainant has categorically asserted that he had only one transformer of Kirloskar make and 2000 K.V.A., which was insured with the respondents.  The respondents have not produced any independent proof that the complainant had more than one transformer.  The difference in two numbers of the transformer is very very minor.  The number of the damaged transformer is 99P0G002, whereas the number in policy schedule is 90P06002.  The number mentioned in the policy from 31.01.2006 to 30.01.2007 is 99P06002. It means that a similar number with only one mistake was mentioned in a previous policy. This supports the possibility of typing mistake in submitting the proposal. In the policy of year 2010, finally the complainant has corrected the mistake and the number mentioned in the policy starting from 05.05.2010 is 99P0G002.  Thus, in the instant case, out of eight digits/letters, there is difference in one digit and one letter in two numbers.  It is very very unlikely that the complainant may be having two transformers bearing so similar numbers.  In the absence of any evidence regarding complainant having more than one transformer, we find force in the assertion of the complainant that the discrepancy in the number of the transformer has occurred due to clerical mistake and negligence, which was totally inadvertent.  Thus, we are of the view that the difference of transformer number mentioned in the policy schedule and mentioned on the actual damaged transformer may be inadvertent and the insurance claim cannot be denied on this technical discrepancy in the facts and circumstances of the case.  On the other hand, we also find that the District Forum has not accepted the loss assessed by the surveyor and has allowed more compensation than assessed by the surveyor. The respondents/Ops had mentioned about the appointment of surveyor and his report in their written statement, but the District Forum has not touched upon the surveyor’s report.  No reasoning has been given for not considering the surveyor’s report. On the significance of the report of the surveyor, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment [“Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr”, (2009) 8 SCC 507], has observed that:

“31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.

32. There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the officer concerned of the insurance company; if for any reason, the report of the surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report.”

12.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 777, has held that:-

 B.     “Insurance Act, 1938,- S. 64-UM- Surveyor/Loss assessor’s report- Weightage to be given- Held, Though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report- No infirmity found in surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.”

13.    Based on the above discussion, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the order dated 01.04.2015 of the State Commission.  The order dated 11.04.2014 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the insurance amount payable to the complainant shall be Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. instead of Rs.7,02,810/- along with interest of 12% p.a. as ordered by the District Forum. As the petitioner had himself given a wrong number of the transformer in the proposal, he was himself responsible for his mental agony. Hence order of the District Forum in respect of an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony is set aside.  Thus, the modified order of the District Forum be complied within a period of 45 days by the respondents/Opposite Parties, failing which, the respondents will be liable to pay additional interest of 4% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. 

14.   No order as to costs.