This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, by its General Manager against Opponents- (1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., at Mumbai, and (2) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., at Bangalore seeking for direction to the Ops to honour the claim of the complainant and to pay Rs. 3,96,940/- with interest at 18% p.a. and damaged of Rs. 25,000/-. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- 2. In-response to service of notice to Ops 1 & 2, they remained absent when they were called out on 14-09-06. Hence both Ops are placed set at Ex-parte. 3. During Ex-parte-enquiry the General Manager of the complainant company filed sworn-affidavit by way of chief-examination and produced (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 4. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant company proves deficiency in service by the Ops, as alleged? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant as averred in the complaint that the complainant Company had taken out a open Marine In-land Transit Insurance Policy bearing No. 2001/0005308 from OP.No-1 through OP.No-2 for sum of Rs. 26,00,00,000/- for the period from 01-04-05 to 31-03-06. Under the said Open Marine In-Land Transit Insurance Policy all types of materials damaged while in the transit were covered. It is the further case of the complainant that it had placed an order for the supply of consignment of 1215 pairs of Ammunition Boots with M/s. Eastern Industries Kanpur worth Rs. 3,96,940/-. The same were consigned and dispatched by M/s. Eastern Industries Kanpur to the complainant vide Lorry Receipt No. 88372 7902 dt. 25-11-05 through the Transport Corporation of India, in the vehicle bearing No. AP-01/V-0836. The said consignment of Ammunition Boots was also covered under the Open Marine In-Land Transit Policy. The said vehicle bearing No. AP-01/V-0836 carrying the consignment of Ammunition Boots met with an accident on Nagpur-NH-7 about 43 KM from Ingan Ghat Near Wadki village on 07-12-05. The entire consignment of the goods was destroyed by the accidental fire in the accident. As per the terms of the policy, the complainant on receiving information of the accident, has informed the same to OP.No-1 through their letter dt. 08-12-05. Thereafter on 13-12-05 the complainant submitted their claim through letter along-with all the required documents. But OP.No-2 through their letter dt. 10-01-06 informed that the Insurance claim has been rejected on the ground that the loss to the consignment of Ammunition Boots is not covered under the Marine In-Land Transit Policy. It is the further case of the complainant that the consignment of goods damaged in the accident on transit fall under the items covered under the policy. Moreover the declaration statements sent by the complainant clearly shows that the above said items also are covered under the policy. Thus, the Ops have wrongly, un-authorisedly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service by the Ops. So the complainant through their notice dt. 06-03-06 finally called-upon the Ops to settle the claim while informing them of the legal action which will be taken if the claim is not settled. But the Ops have not responded to the said letter. Therefore Ops have unauthorisedly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and so they are liable to the claim of the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the complainant Company has prayed for direction to the Ops to honour the claim and to pay Rs. 3,96,940/- with interest at 18% and damages of Rs. 25,000/-. 7. The General Manager of the complainant Company in his affidavit-evidence has reiterated the same. The complainant has produced in all (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16. Ex.P-1 is the Original Marine In-land Transit Insurance Open Policy of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Bangalore along with its covering letter. Ex.P-2 is Lorry Receipt dt. 25-11-05. Ex.P-3 is the Payment of voucher of Eastern Industries dt. 25-11-05. Ex.P-4 is the Invoice No. 009 dt. 25-11-05 issued by Eastern Industries. Ex.P-5 is another Invoice No. 009 dt. 16-01-06 issued by Eastern Industries. Ex.P-6 is the letter of Transport Corporation Of India Kanpur dt. 07-12-05 to Eastern Industries Ltd., Ex.P-7 is another letter dt. 08-02-06 of Transport Corporation of India to Eastern Industries. Ex.P-8 is letter of Eastern Industries to the complainant dt. 07-12-05. Ex.P-9 is the letter of complainant to OP.No-1 dt. 08-12-05. Ex.P-10 is the letter of surveyor of Ops to the complainant dt. 12-12-05. Ex.P-11 is the letter of complainant to OP.No-2 dt. 13-12-05. Ex.P-12 is the letter of OP.No-2 to the complainant dt. 10-01-06. Ex.P-13 is the letter of complainant to OP.No-2 dt. 24-01-06. Ex.P-14 is the letter of OP.No-2 to the complainant dt. 30-01-06. Ex.P-15 is the Notice of complainant to OP.No-2 dt. 06-03-06. Ex.P-16 the Last Reminder Notice of complainant dt. 25-04-06. 8. Ex.P-1 the Insurance Policy shows the subject matter insured as P&M, CHEMICALS, FRAGILE ITEMS. From this it shows that the subject matter insured are articles of Plant & Machinery, Chemicals and Fragile items. The Repudiation letter dt. 10-01-06 at Ex.P-12 shows that as per the Surveyors Final Report, the loss to the consignment of Ammunition Boots is not covered under the Open Marine In-Land Transit Insurance Policy so the loss does not fall under its scope of its coverage. Hence the claim is closed as No Claim. Ex.P-14 is another letter of repudiation dt. 30-01-06 in-reply to the complainants letter dt. 24-01-06, wherein it is reiterated that the subject matter insured vehicle Open Marine In-Land Transit Policy are P & M chemicals and Fragile items. The items damaged under this particular claim are Leather Mining Ammunition Boots which is not part of the items covered under the policy. Hence they have closed the matter treating it as No Claim. Ex.P-15 is letter of complainant dt. 06-03-06 clarifying that: The declaration statements sent every month include all kinds of materials that are stored in their go-down. The categories of materials are only broad in-nature. It does not mean that only materials which fall under the three categories have been insured. Since beginning of their (complainant company) they have been following this system. Therefore it is under-stood that the policy includes all category of materials that are stored in their go-down and OP could have clarified with them while accepting the premium. Now at the time of settlement the objection based on assumptions is not acceptable. The company is a Government Company they are prone to all types of Audits which may highlight the subject to the top management. Hence requested to look into the matter & to settle the claim. If not responded positively they are compelled to go to Consumer Court for Redressal. Ex.P-16 is Last reminder letter of the complainant dt. 25-04-06 to the OP.No-2 by way of Final Reminder stating that any kind of materials issued during Transit cover under the said policy. Categorization of materials given in the Tender Form is only a broad one. 9. Admitted the consigned articles were Ammunition Boots being transported from Kanpur to the complainant-Company. There is no dispute that the Ammunition Boots are used for the workers for mining in the complainant Hutti, Gold-Mines. Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-5 the two Invoices issued by Eastern Industries shows the Ammunition Boots supplied by the Eastern Industries to the Hutti-Gold-Mines Company, Hutti. In these Invoices the Boots supplied is described as Black Colour Leather Mining Ammunition Boots with Steel Toe Cap & Hob nails together with fabric laces ISI mark & DGMS approved. So from this description of consignment of Ammunition Boots it cannot be read simply as Leather Mining Ammunition Boots as stated by the Insurance Company in the repudiation letter at Ex.P-14 since these Ammunition Boots with specification of Steel Toe Caps & Hob nails and naturally they come under the Fragile Items which is one of the items of the insured subject matter. Added to this the description of consigned goods being mining Ammunition Boots containing scientific specifications as per the meaning of the word Ammunition Boots. Hence we find substance in the contention of the complainant Company that the consignment of Ammunition Boots cover under Marine In-Land Transit Policy at Ex.P-1. The conduct of the Respondent Insurance Company in remaining absent in-spite of service of notice issued by this Forum and not contesting this case itself indicates that the Respondent Company has no defence to challenge and rebut the claim of the complainant Company. Hence the contention of the Respondent Company that the loss of consignment Ammunition Boots is not covered under the Marine In-Land Transit Policy is not justified and so we hold that the complainant Company has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent in not settling the claim. Hence Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant Company has sought for direction for payment of Rs. 3,96,940/- being the purchase value of consigned 1215 pairs of Ammunition Boots destroyed by the accidental fire in the accident along-with 18% interest and damages of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant as stated earlier has produced two vouchers at Ex.P-4 & P-5 in this regard. The complainant has also produced Lorry Receipt dt. 25-11-05 at Ex.P-2 to show the consignment of goods (Boots) for transportation from Kanpur to Complainant Company-Hutti Gold Mines Hitt through Transport Corporation of India. It has also produced the letter dt. 07-12-05 at Ex.P-6 by the Transport Corporation of India to the Eastern Industries Ltd., Kanpur informing the vehicle accident & destroy of consignment of Boots by accidental fire. The complainant has also produced another letter dt. 08-02-06 issued by Transport Corporation of India to the Eastern Industries for further steps in the above said matter. So from perusal of these documents we hold that the complainant is entitled for payment of Rs. 3,96,940/- towards the loss of consignment of Boots destroyed by accidental fire in the accident. In so far as the claim of interest at 18% p.a. and the claim of Rs. 25,000/- as damages is concerned, it shows that the complainant Company has claimed compensation towards damages under both heads which is not permissible. Hence having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case we feel it just and proper to allow a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., at Mumbai, and its Branch Office at Bangalore shall pay Rs. 3,96,940/- towards the loss of insured- goods along with global compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-12-06) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Pampannagouda, Member District Forum-Raichur. On leave. Smt.Kavita Patil, Member. District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
