ORDER V.K. Agarwal, President : 1. This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 21.8.06 in complaint No.236/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called' District Forum' for short), dismissing the complaint. 2. It is not in dispute that the complainant/appellant obtained a machinery breakdown insurance policy which included the Tank Capacitor. Sum assured regarding the said equipment shown at serial No.20 was Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The allegation of the complainant was that the said Tank Capacitor got damaged. The complainant informed the insurance about the damage thereof. However, despite the intimation as above, respondent/ insurer did not send the surveyor within reasonable time. It was further averred by the complainant/appellant that as the plant of the complainant had become non-functional, on account of damage to the Tank Capacitor; the said Tank Capacitor was replaced after two days, with another Tank Capacitor. The intimation thereof was again sent to the respondent on 7.05.03. The respondent insurer sent their surveyor H.D. Mehta, on whose suggestion claim was put up by the complainant. However, the claim was repudiated by the respondent/ insurer by letter dated 28.07.04. Hence, the complainant preferred the complaint. Compensation ofRs.50,000/- with interest was claimed in the complaint. 4. Respondent/insurer resisted the complaint. According to the written version of the respondent, the surveyor inspected the premises of the complainant on 7.05.03. It was found that the Tank Capacitor has been changed without intimation to the respondent/insurer. It was further averred that the Tank Capacitor was manufactured in the year 1992 but the complainant had informed that it was manufactured in the year 1999. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. According to the respondent/insurer, the repudiation of the complainant's claim was justified and the complainant was not entitled to any compensation. 5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the Capacitor was manufactured in the year 1999 while infact it was manufactured in the year 1992 and that there was breach of terms of policy in as much as the Capacitor was changed without intimation. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused. 7. The copy of the policy issued by the respondent/insurer is on record. The Tank Capacitor is mentioned at item No.20 of the articles insured by the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused. 7. The copy of the policy issued by the respondent/insurer is on record. The Tank Capacitor is mentioned at item No.20 of the articles insured by the respondent. It would appear from the said item No.20 that the manufacturing year of the Capacitor was shown as 1992. Thus, the contention of the respondent/insurer that the Capacitor was shown to have been manufactured in the year 1999 though it was manufactured in 1992, appears to be without foundation. 8. It may be noticed that in the repudiation letter dated 28.01.04, the report of the surveyor has been referred to and it has been stated that the Capacitor was changed without proper intimation to the respondent/insurer. However, we find that intimation of the breakdown of the Capacitor was given on 3.05.03 as per letter A2 of the appellant. It appears that this intimation was admitted to have been received, as would be clear from the report dated 12-5-2003 of the surveyor Shri H.D. Mehta. I t would also appear that the surveyor came to the complainant's r remises belatedly on 7.05.03 as has been stated in the surveyor's report dated 12.05.03. The complainant's averment in the above regard are that his plant was rendered non-functional, due to damage to the Capacitor, and he could not afford to wait for the arrival of the surveyor despite intimation. Hence he changed the Capacitor. We find substance in the above contention. In the forgoing circumstances, it appears that the complainant was not at fault, in replacing the Capacitor, even before the surveyor reached the premises on 7.05.03 i.e. 4 days after breakdown and the intimation to the respondent/insurer. 9. It is not seriously disputed that the Capacitor was changed, and that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable in that regard. In the circumstances, it is clear that the complainant was entitled to compensation to the above extent. The dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, therefore does not appear to be justified. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside. It is directed that the respondent/insurer shall pay to the complainant/appellant compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 1.01.2004. The dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, therefore does not appear to be justified. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside. It is directed that the respondent/insurer shall pay to the complainant/appellant compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 1.01.2004. The respondent /insurer shall also pay the cost of this litigation to the complainant including this appeal as well as the complaint, which is quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.