1)                   Promod Agarwal,

            8/1D, Gurudas Dutta Garden Lane, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067.                            ______ Complainant

___Versus___

1)                   Liberty Insurance Ptd. Ltd.,

51, Club Street, #03-00, Liberty House, Singapore-069428.

And representing through their settling Agents :

(a) W.K. WEBSTER (INTERNATIONAL) PTE. LTD.,

139,  Cecil Street, #10-00, Cecil House, Singapore-069539.

2)                   Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd.

OM Towers, Suite No. 32, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700071.

3)                   Golden Prime Maritime Pte Ltd.,

Aspiran Garden, 1, Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.                                ____________ Opposite Partis

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   29    Dated  21-01-2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is engaged in import of various items from overseas countries including Malaysian Round Logs. O.p. no.1 is an insurance company and o.p. no.2 is the local agent of o.p. no.1. O.p. no.3 is the shipping company carrying on business in India through its local agents. On 18.8.03 o.p. no.3 received on board the ship M.V. Jupiter from the shippers Paragon Singapore, PTE Ltd., Singapore a consignment 204 pcs of Malaysian Round Logs which are the property of the complainant for safe transportation from the port of TG Money, Malaysia to the port of Kolkata or near upto and to be delivered in order and condition to the shippers. The complainant was the owner of the said consignment of 99 pcs of Malaysian Round Logs of different sizes by purchasing High Seas Sale Agreement from the seller Rajgaria Timber Pvt. Ltd. M/s Rajgaria Timber Pvt. Ltd., the seller, on the basis of High Seas Sale Agreement imported the said consignment from Paragon Singapore PTe under invoice no.228 / 2002-03 dt.1.10.03 for USD 57888.72. The said vessel under Import Rotation no.426 / 03 arrived at Kolkata Port at 28 KP Dock on or about 27.8.03 and thereafter started discharged the cargo on and from 31.8.03. Complainant appointed surveyor Dr. Amin, Supdt. and Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. who is also enlisted surveyors of Kolkata Port Trust and on assessment it was noticed that out of 99 pcs Malaysian Round Logs only 97 pcs were discharged. The said surveyor issued one certificate on 23.9.03 mentioning 2 pcs logs were short landed. As a result complainant suffered a lot to the tune of Rs.62,727/-. The said consignment was insured with o.p. no.1 under the policy of insurance bearing no.SDO3CO9176 / CMR / ROO and cover note no.03CO0861 dt.18.8.03 for sum insured USD 63,677.59 covering cargo under institute cargo clause ‘A’ i.e. All Risks. Complainant preferred a claim upon o.p. no.1 as well as o.p. nos.2 and 3 but o.ps. have not paid the said sum of Rs.62,727/- or any part thereof. Complainant has stated that o.p. no.1 as an insurance company is responsible short landing of 2 pcs Malaysian Round Logs under the policy for which they are liable to compensate for insured value of the loss. O.p. no.1 intentionally and deliberately was silent about the claim which is a case of negligency and deficiency in service. Therefore, complainant prays from o.p. nos.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.62,727/- along with interest along with cost and compensation.

            Matter was fixed ex parte as against o.p. nos.1 and 3. Only o.p. no.2 appeared and filed the w/v.

            O.p. no.2 denied all material allegation interalia stated that there is no privity of contract between o.p. no.2 and complainant. Office of o.p. no.2 is not branch office of o.p. no.1. The survey was made by Dr. Amin, Supdt and Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and certificate was issued on 23.9.03 by a non nominated surveyor. O.p. no.2 acts as survey and claim settling agent but in the instant case they did not carry out the survey. Complainant did not lodge any claim with o.p. no.2. The disputed facts can only be solved by competent Civil Court. It is not possible by way of summarily trial. So the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the petition of complaint, evidence, w/v of o.p. no.2 and materials on record. The moot question for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable or not before this Forum. O.p. no.1 the insurance company has their office at Singapore and o.p. no.3 has their office at Singapore and also at Chennai. Both reside out of our territorial jurisdiction. O.p. no.3 is the survey agent and reside in our territorial jurisdiction but in the instant case o.p. no.2 was not the survey agent. No correspondence has been made between o.p.2 and the complainant. Complainant is not the consumer under o.p. no.1. So the case is not maintainable and hence the case fails.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 3 without cost.