IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability by making false averments.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this first appeal filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the impugned order dated 27.8.2015, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) has been challenged, vide which , Consumer Complaint No. 60/2014 filed by the present respondents, was allowed and the appellant insurance company was directed to pay Rs.19,13,000/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant for damage to the X-ray Tube of CT Scanner purchased by the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint alongwith litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant no.1, Adarsha Diagnostics Centre is partnership firm and complainants no.2 and 3 are partners of the said firm, engaged in the pathological examination of patients in Jaunpur area of U.P. State. The complainants purchased a refurbished C.T. Scanner Model X-Lead worth Rs.28,63,421, for which an insurance policy was taken from the appellant insurance company for the period from 29.8.2012 to 28.8.2013 by paying a premium of Rs.1,09,256/-. It has been stated that X-ray Tube is a vital component of the C.T. Scan machine, and the premium was calculated taking into account the value of the said X-ray Tube. It has also been stated that the machine became dead on 16.9.2012 and it was revealed that there was a problem in the X-ray Tube. The OP insurance company was informed about the problem and on their assurance, a new X-ray Tube was purchased for Rs.19,13,000/- on 28.11.2012. The complainants alleged that despite providing bills etc. for the purchase, the insurance company refused to pay the claim, saying that the X-ray Tube of C.T. Scanner was made in the year 2007 and after applying 100% depreciation, the claim for the old Tube could not be paid. The repudiation letter dated 25.3.2013 was sent by the appellant insurance company to the complainant, saying that the claim was being treated as ‘No Claim’. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.19,13,000/- for the X-ray Tube alongwith interest and also to pay compensation for mental harassment etc. as well as punitive damages. The State Commission allowed the complaint, saying that the insurance policy had been issued by the appellant/OP after carrying out the requisite inspection of the machine and they were not justified in taking the plea that one component of the machine was manufactured in the year 2007 and hence, 100% depreciation could be applied on the value of the said component. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the insurance company is before this Commission by way of the present appeal.

3. There is a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal in question. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant, explaining that the delay on their part was not wilful or intentional. The appellant is a company owned by Government of India and has got multiple offices and levels of authority situated at different places. The delay was caused in seeking approvals at various levels as per the internal procedure laid down. The complainants/respondents, however, objected to the condonation of delay by filing a written reply to the said application, in which they stated that specific details about the time spent at each level in the insurance company had not been indicated. After considering the entire facts of the case and since there does not seem to be any wilful or intentional delay in filing the appeal, the said delay of 34 days is ordered to be condoned.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the insurance policy itself detailed description of insured four items had been given. Item no.4 is the X-ray Tube insured for Rs.32 lakhs and the year of make for the said item had been mention