Haryana

Sonipat

CC/182/2015

M/S PASHUPATI GLASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. DAHIYA

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.182 of 2015

Instituted on:03.06.2015

                                Date of order:20.11.2015

 

 

M/s Pashupati Glass House at ITI Chowk Kailash Colony road, Shadipur, distt. Sonepat through its Prop. Anil Kumar s/o Rohtash.

                                                     ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.

ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veere Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Parbhdevi, Mumbai-400025 through its General Manager (notice to be served through branch manager Sonepat Branch).

                                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NK Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar Adv. For respondent.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against

the respondent alleging therein that he had insured his glass in transit through a marine open Inland Declaration Policy from Sonepat to anywhere in Haryana forRs.10,000,000.00/- and has paid premium of Rs.27958/-.  The insurance policy was to cover any damage to the glass of the complainant by overturning, accident or any other cause during transportation.  On 19.2.2015, load of glass through invoice no.67, 26 crates valuing Rs.681023/- was being transported from Sonepat to Safidon in Truck no.HR46A/5800.  On 20.2.2015 the said truck carrying the consignment overturned near village Khandrai and DD report was lodged at PS Sadar, Gohana. But the respondent repudiated the claim on 23.4.2015 on the pretext that the policy was inland transit clause-C which covers only fire and lightening. Infact the complainant had insured the transit of glass which is usually damaged in accident or overturning of the carrying vehicle and not due to the fire.  For the reason i.e. fire and lightening, the complainant has paid an extra premium amount of Rs.1244.12 for SRCC cover.  There is no explanation in the policy issued to the complainant about ITC (C) cover.  The list of Institute Cargo Clauses (C) as supplied by the agent of the respondent, Clause 1.1.3 clearly states that the policy covers overturning and derailment of land conveyance.  The respondent has wrongly, illegally and only to cause unnecessary harassment to the complainant has repudiated his legal and genuine claim and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the coverage was ITC-C (Inland Transit Clause-C) only, which covers loss or damage to the subject matter insured caused by fire, lightening.  In the instance case, the loss is caused due to overturning of the carrying vehicle and hence the loss/damage is not covered under the policy and thus, the claim of the complainant could not be settled due to non-coverage loss under the policy and the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the coverage was ITC-C (Inland Transit Clause-C) only, which covers loss or damage to the subject matter insured caused by fire, lightening.  In the instance case, the loss is caused due to overturning of the carrying vehicle and hence the loss/damage is not covered under the policy and thus, the claim of the complainant could not be settled due to non-coverage loss under the policy and the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent wrongly and illegally has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that on 20.2.2015 the said truck carrying the consignment overturned near village Khandrai and DD report was lodged at PS Sadar, Gohana. But the respondent repudiated the claim on 23.4.2015 on the pretext that the policy was inland transit clause-C which covers only fire and lightening. Infact the complainant had insured the transit of glass which is usually damaged in accident or overturning of the carrying vehicle and not due to the fire.  For the reason i.e. fire and lightening, the complainant has paid an extra premium amount of Rs.1244.12 for SRCC cover.  There is no explanation in the policy issued to the complainant about ITC (C) cover.  The list of Institute Cargo Clauses (C) as supplied by the agent of the respondent, Clause 1.1.3 clearly states that the policy covers overturning and derailment of land conveyance.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent has issued the policy for the period 18.11.2014 to 17.11.2015 for Rs.one crore with details of transit from Sonepat to anywhere in Haryana, Delhi and Rajasthan. 

          We have perused the Cargo Underwriting, which are reproduced below:-

1.   With respect of Inland Transit Rail/Road, basic risks

cover and all risks cover are available.

2.        For basic risks cover Inland Transit Clause B is applicable.

3.        Risks covered under clause B are fire, lightening, breakage of bridge, collision with or by the carrying vessel, overturning of the carrying vehicle, derailment or accidents.

4.        All risks cover is subject to clause A.

5.        Exclusions under both the clauses are those like insufficiency of packing, willful misconduct etc.

6.        The cover terminates on delivery at final warehouse or on expiry of 7 days after arrival at the final destination railway station/or if by road after arrival at the final destination town whichever shall first occur.

7.        Basic cover can be extended to cover theft, pilferage, non-delivery, rain water damage etc.

8.        Ocean transit-three types of cover as per ICC(A), ICC(B) and ICC(C) are available.

9.        ICC(C)provides cover with respect to loss of damage due to fire or explosion, stranding, grounding, sinking, overturning, derailment of land conveyance, collision or contract with external object other than water, discharge of cargo at port of distress, general average sacrifice and jettison.

          So, the above conditions fully favours the claim of the complainant and as per the above conditions, the respondent is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.

          On the contrary, in the policy in question, against SRCC cover, the respondent has charged the premium of Rs.1244.12 paise from the complainant.  There is nothing on record from the side of the respondent that the respondent insurance company has ever supplied the terms and conditions of any other insurance policy to the complainant.

          In document Ex.C8 i.e. print of e-mail it is mentioned by the respondent insurance company that “We apprise you that the coverage under the captioned policy is granted as per Inland Transit Clauses-C perils only.  Inland Transit Clause-C covers loss or damage to the subject matter insured cause by fire, lightening.

          In the present case, the vehicle was going on the road after loading the glass and in transit, first risk always the accident and thereafter overturning.  Fire cannot be expected all the time, rather it could happen rarely.  In the document Ex.R1, against ITC© the respondent has charged Rs.23637/- from the complainant as premium.  In our view, at the time of selling the policy in question to the complainant, the complainant was misleaded and misguided by the respondent because at that time, the only purpose was to sell the policy to the complainant by hook or crook.  But now when the complainant has suffered a huge loss in transit and he has claimed the said loss from the insurance company, the respondent insurance company has started to take the lame excuses and on the basis of the said baseless and lame excuses, the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant.

          In the present case, Marine Final Survey report dated 2.3.2015 was submitted by Sunglow surveyor and loss assessor thereby assessing the net loss to the tune of Rs.6,71,023/-.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the amount as assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.671023/- is allowed to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.6,71,023/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present case. The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- for rendering deficient services, for causing harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:20.11.2015.