CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/44/17

          Date of Institution:-    14.02.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 18.03.2024

                              Date of Decision:-      12.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Hartech Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

A-18, Hosiery Complex,

Phase-II Extn.,

Noida, U.P. – 201305

Also at;

B-90, Mayapuri Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi - 110064

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

705, BhikajiCamaBhavan,

BhikajiCama Place,

New Delhi - 110066

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatthe complaint is filed through MD of the complainant. The complainant is engaged in the manufacturing of all kinds of precision plastic parts etc. at its factory situated at A-18, Hosiery Complex Phase-II Extn. Noida. On 25.03.2011,the complainant has purchased one servo voltage stabilizer 750KVA for Rs.813738/- from M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice no.992 which was duly insured under machinery brake down insurance policy of the OP valid from 01.03.2006 – 28.02.2017. On 23.06.2016 there was break down in the stabilizer and OP was informed vide mail dated 23.06.2016. M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 24.06.2016 informed the complainant that engineer has visited the site and inspected the stabilizer and found that four number of coils have been damaged due to blockage of carbon brushes and two other coils are in the stabilizer. The cost of repair will be Rs.325000/- + excise and taxes. On 27.06.2016, the OP was informed about the inspection by the engineer of M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. and requested the OP to depute the surveyor. Sh. A. K. Bajaj was appointed as surveyor who visited the factory and demanded documents vide mail dated 01.07.2016 which were provided vide mail dated 06.07.2016. A letter dated 06.07.2016 with original copy of claim form and documents were also sent to OP. On 13.07.2016, M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. informed the complainant that probable cause of damage in stabilizer is over voltage – carbon of two phases could have struck and damaging the coils as carbon works as electrodes. The blockage of mechanical system cases causes damage to the coils as if carbon do not roll; conductor gets damage due to melting. Carbon is not affected due to damage protection work and system stops. The said letter was provided to the OP along with copy of internal log book of daily inspection of stabilizer and oiling up of the stabilizer was supplied to the OP. The breakup of Rs.339700/- was provided by M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 21.07.2016 and same was forwarded to the OP for approval. On 25.07.2016, the surveyor has sent an email that damage may be due to lack of lubricant oil in chamber which led to overheating of coil which is not covered under the policy. The complainant vide email dated 26.07.2016 informed the OP that they did not agree with the opinion of surveyor. The OP vide email dated 22.08.2016 informed that they have closed the case as ‘no claim’. The stabilizer was got repaired from M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. and invoice no.235 dated 21.09.2016 of Rs.304071/- was raised and said amount was paid. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP.Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that there is no cause of action as well as locus standi to file the complaint as policy was taken for the shop and fire has taken place in godown. The survey was conducted by M/s Aay Bee Associates and consultants which found that burning of coil has taken place due to lack of oil inside the chamber which resulted in overheating of carbo and coils and thus caused burning and thereby claim was repudiated. The case involves factual and legal issues which cannot be determined by this Commission.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed the affidavit of Sh. Harjeet Singh, Managing Director in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the compliant and placed reliance on the documentsEx.CW1/1 to CW1/28 though exhibits are not put on the documents.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Ms.Sumiti, Assistant Manager in evidence in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of the written statement.

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as no one has turned up on behalf of the OP to address the arguments and perused the record.

8. The OP has nowhere disputed the purchase of servo voltage stabilizer by the complainant form M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. The OP has nowhere disputed the break down in the stabilizer. The stabilizer was under insurance with OP and this fact is nowhere disputed.

9. The question that needs consideration is whether break down was due to the lack of oil inside the chamber which resulted in over heating of carbo and coil and thus caused burning as this plea is taken by OP in the WS.

10. The evidence shows that OP has appointed M/s Aay Bee Associates and Consultants as surveyors to inspect the stabilizer and prepared the report in order to dispute the version of the complainant. The letter dated 10.08.2016 shown as Ex.CW1/24 by the complainant in the evidence shows that the case has been closed as no claim due to the lack of oil inside the chamber which resulted in over heating of carbo and coil and thus caused burning.The OP has not placed on record the survey report prepared by M/s Aay Bee Associates and consultants on record in order to further the defence. The OP has withhold the material document from the Commission which calls for an adverse inference against OP.

11. The complainant has placed on record the letter dated 13.07.2016 shown as Ex.CW1/13 in the affidavit that probable cause is over voltage – carbon of two phases could have struck and damaging the coils as carbon works as electrodes. The blockage of mechanical system cases causes damages to the coils as if carbon do not roll, conductor gets damage due to melting. Carbon is not affected due to damage protection work and system stops.

12. This report cannot be brushed aside in the absence of any survey report from the OP. There is no contrary evidence on record from the OP that damage to the stabilizer was due to the lack of the oil inside the chamber. In the absence of any report from the OP, the report dated 13.07.2016 given by the manufacturer of the stabilizer is relied upon.

13. The cost of repair Ex.CW1/17 given by M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd. was brought to the notice of OP vide email dated 22.07.2016 Ex.CW1/18.

14. The complainant got the stabilizer repaired after the repudiation of the claim by the OP as apparent from invoice Ex.CW1/26 and paid Rs.3,04,071/- to M/s ABC Transformers Pvt. Ltd.

15. There is no evidence on record from the side of the OP that burning of stabilizer was due to lack of oil inside the chamber. The report submitted by the complainant in the evidence shows otherwise. There is no evidence on record to rebut the evidence led by the complainant so the evidence led by the complainant is relied upon.

16. The entire evidence on the file shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP to deny the claim of the complainant as stabilizer was not damaged due to lack of oil in the oil chamber.

17. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP shall pay a sum of Rs.3,04,071/-along with an interest @7% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 21.09.2016 till its realization. The complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 12.09.2024.