IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 30.07.2014 Date of Reserving the order: 15.07.2024 Date of Decision: 04.02.2025 CC No. 345/2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/s Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd.

185, A Pocket-B Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-110039 (Through: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate)

..…Complainant VERSUS M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

7-E, Deen Dayal Building, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi-110055 (Through: Mr Animesh Sinha, Advocate)

.....Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for Complainant None for Opposite Party PER: Hon’ble MS.BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment we shall dispose of the complaint no.345/2014 which has been filed by the complainant vide diary no.4691 dated 30th July 2014 against the opposite party M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant company (hereinafter referred to as complainant) is engaged in the business of laying/installation of underground drilling and pulling pipes through drilled bore. The complainant for the purpose of its business, purchased a machine known as horizontal directional drill machine from the company, namely, M/S Vermeer manufacturing company. After the purchase of the machine, the complainant purchased the Special Contingency Insurance Policy bearing no.350200/46/10/9500000188 for the period w.e.f. 01.12.2010 to 30.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.6,13,78,875/-. The complaint was paying the premium of Rs. 1,63,000/- p.a. to the opposite party.

3. It is the case of the complainant that during the subsistence of the policy, the machine got damaged in an accident which took place at Kochi on 19.07.2011 at about 10 p.m. The machine was under use for laying of pipeline at the site and was damaged, due to break off, of the boom assisting the crane while unloading from the trailer through an earthen slop. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party on 20.07.2011 through email. The complainant also sent the detailed letter dated 20.07.2011 to the opposite party and also took various photographs of the machine, after the incident. Thereafter, the opposite party appointed M/s S.P. Engineers and surveyors who visited the premises. The complainant provided all the documents, which were required by the surveyor for assessment of loss. The complainant also obtained estimate from the manufacturer of the machine, who quoted the total cost of repairs, approximately, Rs.97 Lakhs and also sought a period of 3 months for providing the parts and carrying out the repairs. The complainant in order to minimise the loss and get the repairs carried out at the earliest, got carried out some few works from the local repairer, for which a letter was sent by the surveyor Mr V.N. Sivan Pillai. The said surveyor in its letter admitted about the quotation of the repairs amounting to Rs.83,99,362/- but objected to the action of the complainant for getting some work carried out from the local repairer. The complainant filed reply to the letter of surveyor vide its letter dated 09.11.2011, wherein it was submitted that complainant was forced to approach the local repairer, as the authorised dealer had sought three months time to carry out the repairs and had given estimates amounting to Rs. 1 crore.

4. It is the further case of the complainant that vide email dated 17.08.2011 it also clarified that the local repairs were not carried out by an unskilled person as the engineer and mechanics were provided by the manufacturer only. It was also pointed out that they were trying to locate the hidden damages in the various parts of the machine. It was further notified by the complainant that after the extent of damage was completely known only then the process of final repair would be started. Thereafter, the complainant got the various works at the site and also got isolated the various parts and mechanical effects, which had occurred due to t