IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no irregularity in the orders passed by the State Commission, the same cannot be interfered with in the appellate forum.

This first appeal has been filed by the appellant, M/s. Hi Tech Plastics, through its Director against the impugned order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the State Commission, Bihar Patna (for short, ‘State Commission’) in CC No.11/2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/complainant on 13.12.2006 placed purchase order with Windsor machine Ltd., Kolkata for purchase of Micro Processor controlled Hydro Mechanical Type Double Colour Injection Moulding machine, Model “Sprint 850 TC” with injection Unit 13300 and 1310 for manufacturing plastic chairs and other articles at Patna. On 27.12.2006 M/s. Windsor Machines Ltd. sent proforma invoice showing cost of machine at Rs.1,07,97,696/- including taxes. The appellant requested the United India Insurance Company Ltd. to issue transit insurance policy covering the risk of damage of the machine during transit from Chhatral (Gujarat) to Patna. On 1.6.2007, insurance company issued All Risk Transit Insurance Policy No.210200/21/07/01/00000001 effective from 6.45 PM on 1.6.2007. The machine was entrusted to Carrier for transportation from Chhatral to Patna. As the machine was big, it was decided to transport in two parts. Locking Unit weighing 34 tones and Injection Unit weighting 18 tones were loaded separately on 7.6.2007. On 11.6.2007, Truck Trailer No. HR -38E – 0426 having “Locking Unit” met with road accident near Manik Pur in Etawa District (UP) when excel of the trailer got broken and trailer truck turned turtle with loaded locking unit. Information about accident was given to local police. Another Truck Trailer No.NL 01A-9335 having “Injection Unit” met with road accident near Didarganj causing extensive damage to machine. Insurance company and M/s. Windsor Machines Ltd were informed about the accident by the appellant. On 20.6.2007 Engineer Mr Alpesh Shah of M/s. Windsor Machines Ltd examined the damaged machine and found it completely damaged having no chance of further repairing. On 27.7.2007 Surveyor Mani Bhushan Singh submitted preliminary survey report to the insurance company regarding damage of both the units. Both the units were sent back to Chhatral (Gujarat) in consultation with surveyor Mr. Mani Bhushan and Engineer Mr. Alpesh Shah for dismantling and further assessment. On 3 1.2007 claim form was submitted to respondent no.2. On 2.8.2007 anther surveyor namely M/s. Trans Ocean Marine & General Survey Agency, Ahmedabad, surveyed both the machines and found extensive damage in both the machines. The surveyor submitted the report on 10.8.2007. The carrier issued damage certificate with respect to both the units. M/s. Windsor Machines Ltd sent Estimate Invoice dated 31.10.2007 with respect to the cost to be incurred with respect to the damaged machines for the purpose of its repair amounting to Rs.89,56,433/-. On 11.12.2007, M/s. Trans Marine Ocean surveyor made certain queries and the complainant provided all the details. On 4.2.2008 the final survey report by M/s. Trans Ocean Marine and General Survey was submitted. The surveyor assessed the salvage value at Rs.10 lakhs and it opined that the locking unit trailer should have been a low bed one although there was no such instruction from the insurance company. On 16.5.2008 the complainant requested the insurance company to settle the dispute. The insurance company did not decide the claim for a long time. However, the claim was repudiated on 3.11.2009. The complainant then preferred Complaint Case No.11/2010. The complaint was resisted by insurance company by filing written statement. However, the State Commission allowed the consumer complaint and ordered the insurance company to pay Rs.97,97,696/- in all which shall be paid within two months from the date of passing of the order, failing which interest @ 8% per annum shall be counted thereafter for the purpose of payment.

3. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parti