IMPORTANT POINT
When complaint is barred by limitation merits of case cannot be considered.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complt. No.CC/03/2007 – Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant is registered company and it is engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel products and other such allied products. It obtained insurance policy from the OP No.1/Respondent No. 1 insurance company and thereby insured its machinery for sum assured of Rs.31,70,55000/- by paying premium of Rs.43,13,812/-. During the subsistence of the coverage, there was breakdown of EAF 40 MVA/NOVA make furnace transformer and in that breakdown, the said transformer was damaged. Information about the same was given by them to the Ops. The OP No.2/Respondent No. 2 appointed surveyor Mr. Shankar Dhawan. Further correspondence was made by the complainant with the OP No.2 as specified, in detail, in the complaint in respect of its claim. The surveyor also paid visit and witnessed the assembly of LV coil, HV coil and regulatory coil of the transformer. Necessary documents were also furnished by the complainant to the Ops in support of the claim. The complainant submitted claim for Rs.104009120/- along with relevant documents to OPs. Further information sought for by the surveyor was also furnished by the complainant to him. The surveyor submitted final survey report assessing the loss at Rs.36,72,136/-. Thereafter, the complainant sought clarification regarding the basis of depreciation of 60% charged by the surveyor while assessing the loss. The OP No.2 sent reply about that clarification on 8/3/2004. The complainant sent letter dated 15/3/2004 to the Ops inviting their attention to the notification issued by Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) thereby applicability of depreciation adjustment for rewinding machine was withdrawn from 1/9/1998. The complainant requested the OP to add the deducted amount of Rs.6104400/- towards depreciation and revive the claim to that extent. The complainant, then again, vide letter dated 31/3/2004 requested the OP No.2 to revise claim and make payment of Rs.88,77,538/-. Thereafter, the surveyor reassessed the liability and completely changed the basis of assessment from repair basis to total loss basis and revised the claim by assessing net loss of Rs.3786683.79 though the said transformer, after repairing is working normally. The complainant, vide letter dated 28/6/2004 requested the Ops to settle the dispute at an earliest. However, vide letter dated 12/1/2005, Ops informed the complainant regarding approval of claim of Rs.3796679/- only. They also enclosed discharge voucher and requested the complainant to return the same duly signed to issue the cheque. The complainant signed it under protest and sent the same alongwith its letter dated 8/2/2005 to the Ops. The complainant thereafter received cheque for Rs.37,17,045/- dated 17/2/2005. Thereafter, the complainant, vide letter dated 22/7/2005 requested the Ops to reconsider the matter and to re-examine the matter after taking an independent opinion. Lastly, the complainant, vide letter dated 20/9/2005 called upon Ops to settle the claim or else refer the matter to Arbitrator. The Ops wrote letter stating that they have referred the matter to OP No.3/Respondent No. 3 and would revert back after receiving information from them. But, thereafter, no response was received from Ops. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

3. OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy and payment made to the complainant, but submitted that complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as voluminous evidence is required to be adduced. Moreover, the rate of depreciation calculated by Ops on the