(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) Admit and heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
(2) This appeal, filed by the complainant, takes an exception to the dismissal of consumer complaint bearing No.67/200, M/s. Balaji Textiles Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd., passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘the forum’ in short).
(3) In the instant case, Marin Cargo (Inland) Specific Policy was taken by the complainant for transit of the machinery from Nava Shiva to Kadegaon M.I.D.C. Sangli. As per the facts submitted before us, when the container reached the destination, at that time some leakage of oil was noticed from the side door of the container. When the container was opened, it was found that the machine oil was drain out and oil tank support was broken. Consequently, an insurance claim under the policy was made on 16/11/2008. It was repudiated on the ground that the damage was due to normal hazard which is not covered by the policy. The consumer complaint was filed but the forum dismissed the same.
(4) During the arguments, learned counsel for the complainant invited out attention to the schedule – Marine Cargo (Inland) Specific Policy i.e. Cover Note issued as well as the undertaking of the complainant, copy of the said is taken on record with consent of both the parties. In the said policy, the risk covered reads as under :-
“This insurance covers, except as provided in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 below, the risks of physical loss or damage to the insured goods caused by
(a) (i) fire
(ii) lightening
(iii) breakage of bridges
(b) (i) collision with or by the carrying vehicle.
(ii) overturning or the carrying vehicle.
(iii) derailment or accidents of like nature to the carrying railway wagon/vehicle…….
EXCLUSIONS :
2.2. Ordinary leakage, ordinary loss in weight or volume or ordinary wear and tear of the subject matter insured.”
(5) It is well settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are to be considered as they are and nothing to be added or nothing to be substituted/altered. Both the parties are equally bound by them.
(6) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that damage to the oil tank which found broken during the transit, is the one covered under the policy and, therefore, repudiation of the claim is not justifiable. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company did not subscribe to such submission and refer to the policy condition including Exclusion Clause, supra.
(7) None of the events mentioning under caption, ‘covered’, admittedly, did not occur in the instant case. The consignment reached safely to its destination. Therefore, the leakage noticed could be attributed only to normal transit hazard and as per Exclusion Clause 2.2, supra, the claim will not be covered under the policy. Therefore, ultimate repudiation of the insurance claim is justifiable and no deficiency in the service on part of the insurance company could be inferred. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 27th June, 2011.
