In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 190 / 2006.
1) Sri Ashok Kumar Baid, M/s. Sidhi Vinayak,,
P.O. Box no. 38, Adarshnagar-13, Birgunj, Nepal. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) American Home Assurance Company,
20, Pine Street, New York, New Park, 10270.
2) Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
Tata Centre, 1st Floor, 43, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071.
3) Nirwan Road Carriers,
21, Rupchand Roy Street, Kolkata-700007. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 45 Dated 30/08/2012
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sri Ashok Kumar Baid against the o.ps. American Home Assurance Co. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant being a sole proprietor of M/s Sidhi Vinayak filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
Complainant placed on order to M/s DTS Co., USA against letter of credit no.HBL FX 09570176 dt.3.1.01 issued by Himalayan Bank Ltd., Birgunj for supply of Aluminum Scrap.
The said suppliers M/s DTS Co., USA executed a shipment of consignment of 31 Bales of Aluminum Scrap vide their invoice no.0328 dt.7.1.01 on CIF basis for invoice value of USD 20,182.44 against Bill of Lading no.83149996 dt.15.1.01 from the Port of GREENSBORO, USA to Port of Calcutta.
The said consignment was insured with o.p. no.1 against Marine Insurance Policy under ‘ALL RISKS’, i.e. Insurance Cargo Clause ‘A’ from Warehouse to Warehouse upto final destination at Nepal. As per usual procedure on unloading of the said consignment, it was transshipped ex. Vessel at Haldia Port in good order and sound condition and thereafter the said consignment was transported from Haldia Port to Nepal by Road Carriers M/s. Nirwan Road Carriers and as a Token thereof, the said Road Carries issued a Clean Consignment Note on 13.3.01.
The said consignment on arrival at Birgunj, Nepal Custom Premises and during taking delivery, loss was detected and immediately an inspection was held by Lloyd’s Surveyors on 21.3.01 and after assessment the said Lloyd’s Surveyors issued their report 10.7.01 mentioning shortage of 3276 kgs of Aluminum Scrap. Complainant states that the goods were unloaded at Haldia Port in good order and sound condition and with the expectation that goods were supposed to be delivered at destination in proper and secured condition but actually it was found that there was difference of 3276 kgs.
Thereafter, complainant brought the matter to the notice to o.p. no.3, the carriers who admitted the said loss but denied liability. Complainant being the purchaser and consignees of the said consignment having right and insurable interest over the said consignment made claim to the insurance company for the loss suffered by complainant. Complainant made such claim on 24.3.01 and also 25.8.01 but the said claim kept pending by o.ps. without any reason or cause. Failure on the part of o.ps. to make payment of the claim as claim made by complainant, constitutes a case of negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the case has been filed by complainant with the prayer mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.2 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it. O.p. no.2 in the w/v stated that the instant case is not maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. nos.1 and 3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against them.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.ps. had sufficient lapses on their part and as per provisions of law Marine Insurance is valid and o.p. no.3 happens to be the local agent of other o.ps. and this court has got territorial jurisdiction.
Record discloses that complainant had to face huge loss for the lapse of o.ps. being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.2 with cost and ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 3 with cost. All o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to make payment of Rs.1,94,709/- (Rupees one lakh ninety four thousand seven hundred nine) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking of consignment till the date of realization and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost under Section 21(1) of Consumer Protection Regulation.