ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member.—This first appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’), challenges the order dated 03.03.2017 of the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in CC No. 39 of 2010, allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party (appellant herein), to pay the respondent a sum of Rs 29,07,000/-, together with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation (19.11.2008) till realization, together with costs of Rs 3,000/- within 4 weeks.

2. The delay of 179 days in the filing of this first appeal was considered in the light of IA 15483 of 2017, and for the reasons stated therein, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and produced the records carefully.

4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellant is engaged in the business of rolling steel making and for this purpose it has a plant to manufacture MS ingots. The respondent obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy (in short, ‘the Policy’) for the period 16.05.2008 to 15.05.2009 to cover the building, plant and machinery in the insured premises of the plant, known as M/s Raghava Ispat, manufacturing the MS ingots. On 13.06.2008, new machinery was installed by way of induction of furnace, crucible, spout crucible barandhs, crucible and stand SS antenna along with other accessories acquired in April 2008. The furnace crucible after installation was fired up and the temperature slowly increased to 1600 degrees Celsius in the month of June 2008. On 12.06.2008 at around 8.30 am, while the furnace crucible was being heated, there was a blast and the molten metal flowed out into the furnace room. The incident was informed to the appellant insurance company by the respondent and a claim along with relevant documents for Rs 47 lakhs as loss on account of this incident was submitted to the appellant insurance company. The appellant appointed a surveyor, B Nageshwara Rao, to assess the loss. However, in view of non-cooperation of the respondent, the appellant insurance company appointed another surveyor, APC Reddy, who assessed the loss after inspection for Rs 14,80,940/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy, including deduction on account of salvage. Based on the report of this surveyor, the appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the crucible had suffered a blast due to over-temperature which was not covered under the fire policy and therefore the cause of loss fell under the Exclusion Clause 1(A) (ii) of the policy under which destruction or damage caused to property by its undergoing any heating or drying process was excluded. It was also excluded, according to the complainant, under Condition No. 7 of the General Exclusions under the Policy, The appellant also based its repudiation on the service report and bill of M/s Megatherm (suppliers of the equipment) dated 21.06.2008 and its fax dated 23.06.2008 that there was an internal short circuit in the coil of the crucible due to which the blast occurred due to ‘over-temperature’. The repudiation of claim was challenged by the respondent before the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 39 of 2010 claiming Rs 29,07,000/- with interest @ 24% and compensation of Rs 5 lakhs with costs which was disposed of by way of order dated 27.06.2012, partly allowing the complaint. This order of the State Commission is impugned before us.

5. According to the appellant, the order of the State Commission was erroneous since it was based upon conjectures and surmises instead of facts and evidence on record and had failed to appreciate that the claim had been repudiated correctly on the grounds of being untenable.

According to the appellant, the furnace crucible had suffered a blast due to ‘over-temperature’ and not due to fire and therefore the mishap was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy and fell within the Excl