Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/1024

ORSON CHEMICALS - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

U B WAVIKAR

21 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/1024
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/07/2010 in Case No. 243/08 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
 
1. ORSON CHEMICALS
MR NARAYAN PRASAD GEONKA B-003 ISHWARDAS BHAVAN AKRULI CROSS ROAD NO 1 KANDIVALI EAST MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
ASARA BUILDING 4 TH FLOOR 182 WATER FIELD ROAD BANDRA (W)MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARSHTRA
2. CALCUTTA AHMEDABAD CARRIERS (P) LTD
7, TARA CHAND DUTTA STREET KOLKATA
KOLKATA
WEST BANGAL
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Ms. Rashmi Manne,,Advocate, Proxy for U B WAVIKAR , Advocate for for the Appellant 1
 
Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Advocate for Respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :

          Heard Ms. Rashmi Manne, Advocate for Appellant.  This appeal is directed as against the order dated 29.7.2010 in consumer complaint No. 243/2008 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra and the said consumer complaint has been dismissed.  It is admitted fact that there was a Marine Cargo Policy.  The case of the Complainant is that he was transporting Unsaturated Polyester Resin  which was valued at `7,39,555/-.  The truck carrying the said material met with an accident on 22.7.2007.  It is to be noted that the material being liquid perishable and adhesive in nature got totally destroyed in the accident.  The appellant immediately on receipt of the information on 1.8.2007 lodged his claim with the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.1 appointed Surveyor.  However, damaged truck and barrels were not shown to the Surveyor.  Appellant states that after continuous follow-up, the Respondent No.1 through his employee one Mr. Irfan Multani repudiated the claim without giving sufficient reasons and/or any legal justification.  For the damage, neither the site was shown nor the empty barrels which could have shown/indicated their contents (by a resedue left), were shown.  On the contrary, it appears that some of the barrels are transported.  We are trying to look into the claim affidavit of the complainant.  It does not establish anything in respect of the loss.  The Ld. Counsel for the appellant tried to submit that the liquid was perishable.  We asked how and under what circumstances it is perishable but nothing has been shown to substantiate the same on the basis of the record.  Above all, even though if it is perishable liquid, complainant was under obligation to show that after the accident, all barrels were damaged and contains of the barrels were lost.  We find it is a fraudulent claim and rightly rejected by the Insurance Company.  Hence the following order :

O R D E R

          Appeal stands rejected.  No order as to costs.

 

Pronounced dated 21st September 2011.

 

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]
PRESIDENT
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.