SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
M/s. EMCO Ltd. —Appellant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.1407 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 26/04/2017 in Complaint No. 708/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 16.11.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Sufficient cause with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Insurance—All Risks Insurance Policy—Tripping of Transformer—Respondent repudiated claim of appellant on ground that as per Survey report Transformer was duly tested successfully and it had failed at the time of commissioning after three months of testing—Delay of 217 days in filing consumer complaint—No attention was paid to urgent requirement of filing complaint in time—There appears to be no follow-up by any top officials of Company—No specific dates and no specific justifiable reasons have been given to explain inordinate delay of 217 days—Sufficient cause with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact—No cogent ground to interfere with impugned order of State Commission—Appeal dismissed.

       Held: It is seen from the reasons given in the application that no attention was paid to the urgent requirement of filing the complaint in time. There appears to be no follow-up by any top officials of the Company. No specific dates and no specific justifiable reasons have been given to explain the inordinate delay of 217 days. At the same time, it is also well settled that “sufficient cause” with regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 5 and 11)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in MA No.16/376 in CC No.16/708.

2. The facts of the case as per the appellant are that in the year 2009 the appellant company had entered into a contract for erection and commissioning of a 160 MVA Transformer with M/s Delhi Transco Ltd., at pre-fabricated build, Rajghat Power House and were issued with a letter of award. The appellant obtained an erection and all risks insurance policy bearing no. 222100/ 44/ 09/ 44/ 400000005 from the respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company which was valid from 25.05.2009 to 24.12.2010. It was further extended from 24.12.2010 to 24.06.2011. The assembly erection of the transformer was completed and the transformer testings were carried out. After testing of the transformer was completed and the switch yards were ready for commissioning in March 2011. On 01.04.2011 an MOU was entered between the appellant and the respondent/ insurance company for all the insurance policies issued by the respondent between 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. On 12.05.2011 during the commissioning of the transformer, there was a short circuit, due to which the transformer failed and tripped at 18.03 hours. The said information was given to the respondent on 13.05.2011. The surveyor submitted his final report on 12.06.2012. The respondent on 05.12.2013 repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that as per the survey report the transformer was duly tested successfully in August 2010 and it had failed at the time of commissioning after three months of testing. Thus, the kind of fault would not fall under the purview of the policy. The appellant thus filed an appeal no. 708 of 2016 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in July 2016 along with an MA no. 376 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The State Commission while dismissing the application for condonation of delay observed as under:

7. Admittedly, transformer of the applicant/complainant company failed/ tripped on 12/05/2011 due to short circuit. The applicant /complainant lodged the insurance claim with the opponent Insurance Co. which was repudiated on 05/12/2013. Applicant/complainant filed the complaint on 15/07/2016 along with delay condonation application. There is delay of 217 days in filing the consumer complaint.

8. It is informed that the Company Secretary Mr Praveen Kumar Jha, who was taking care of legal matters resigned from the services of the applicant company. It is not made clear when Mr Praveen Kumar Jha tendered his resignation. It is not made clear whether prior to resignation Mr Praveen Kumar Jha gave notice for intimation of resignation. Advocate was appointed in the month of June 2014 for filing the complaint. After resignation of Mr Jha, charge was given to Mr Vinayak Pathare sometime in the month of August 2014. Mr Pathare also left the services on 30/04/2015. There was sufficient time to give instructions to the advocates who were appointed by the company in the month of June 2014 before leaving the services by Mr Praveen Kumar Jha as well as Mr Vinayak Pathare. They were in a position to give instructions to the advocates.

9. After resignation of Mr Vinayak Pathare, Mr Vinod Amin, who is Deputy Manager, Insurance was appraised of the matter and was informed that the time limit of two years would end on 11/12/2015. It is not clarified when he approached to his higher officers from the Transformers department. He was on higher position. He could have taken instructions from the staff of the said department, who is well acquainted with the said matter. Apart from that there is a Legal department in applicant company. In absence of legal officer, Mr Praveen Kumar Jha was taking care of legal matters. Legal aid was available to the applicant company. Copies of the resignation tendered by Mr Pra


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top