The Insurance Company cannot repudiate a valid claim if it failed to advise against potential policy breaches prior to the incident.

1. This Revision Petition, under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , has been filed by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), against the Order dated 5.9.2013, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in SC Case No. FA / 220/12. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 5,15,052 instead of Rs. 6,22,557, by modifying the Order dated 23.2.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in CC Case No. 43/2011. By the said Order, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint, filed by the Complainant, Respondent herein, and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 6,22,557 within one month, failing which it would carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its realization, as also further sum of Rs. 5000 towards litigation cost.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition, are that the Complainant purchased two new Hydraulic Mobile Cranes of 12 Ton capacity, each at a sale consideration of Rs. 9,75,052, vide Invoice No. Kol / 9260 dated 30.3.2010 and Invoice No. Kol / 9261 dated 30.3.2010 from Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd., Kolkata for using the same in its Project at Bhilai. The Cranes were handed over to the road carriers, namely, M/s Super Cargo Carrier, Kolkata and M/s Kotak Transport Company, Kolkata for transportation from Kolkata to Bhilai through two trucks under Consignment Nos. 001013 dated 8.4.2010 and 380 dated 14.4.2010. According to the Complainant, all the documents were produced before the Insurance Company before granting transit insurance policy in respect of both the Cranes, covering the transit risk without raising any objection. While the truck carrying the Crane under Consignment No. 001013 dated 8.4.2010 safely reached at the destination, the truck carrying the other Crane under Consignment No. 380 dated 14.4.2010 due to brake failure met with an accident, causing serious injury to the Driver of the truck, who later succumbed to the injury at the hospital, and the Crane was also seriously damaged. The Complainant reported about the accident to the Insurance Company, which deputed one Mr. S.R. Sarkar to carry out spot survey. The spot survey was carried out and the Complainant was asked to shift the damaged Crane to the nearest authorized dealer of Escort Construction Equipment Ltd. for final survey. Then, the Insurance Company deputed Mr. M.A. Rawani, Surveyor, Raipur, to conduct the final survey and assess the loss. After examining the damaged Crane, the Surveyor suggested that the damage was so serious that the repairing cost would fetch nearly the value of the new crane and declared it a case of total loss.

3. According to the Complainant, when he preferred a claim in the matter, the Insurance Company agreed to settle the claim on net of salvage / total loss basis and given a proposal to the Complainant, wherein the salvage buyer was to make direct payment of Rs. 4,50,000 to the Complainant through demand draft and the said payment was to be adjusted from the claim amount to be paid by the Insurance Company. The Complainant agreed to the proposal and handed over the damaged Crane to the nominated buyer Mr. Shobha Ram Viswakarma after receiving the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as salvage value as assessed b