DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.127 of 2013 Date of Institution: 15.04.2013 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015
M/s Celfrost Innovation Pvt. Ltd, Formerly known as Celcius Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, SLV House, Plot No.14, Sector-44, Near Hotel Taj Vivanta, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office: Payal Cinema Complex, Delhi Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon -122 001.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.K.Khurana, Adv for the complainant.
Sh.Yashpal Kalra, Adv for the OP.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant-company had taken Inland Marine Policy bearing Policy No.214700/21/2009/02 which was valid from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 (Ann-B). The complainant received an order from M/s PepsiCo. India Holding Private Ltd for Beverage Making Machine which were imported by the complainant and the same was dispatched to M/s PepsiCo India Holding Private Ltd from Gurgaon to Chennai by road transport through M/s Sheetla Tempo Transport Service, Gurgaon vide Builty No.1994 dated 20.12.2008 (Ann-C). It is further alleged that said consignment containing 24 cases of Beverage Making Machine valuing Rs.29,13,268/- vide Bill No.DEL/0785/RI dated 17.12.2008 was dispatched on 20.12.2008 from Gurgaon through Truck No.HR-69-5059. Unfortunately, the said Truck No.HR-69-5059 was found in a heirless condition near Deepak Saheli Dhaba on NH69, 3 K.M.in South From Kesla Police Station and the same was seized by the police vide Istegasa No.1/09, CRPC 102. During the transit there was a pilferage and one machine bearing Machine No.6100655779 was found to be partially damaged, Machine No.610065770 was found to be missing in transit and beverage making machine CEV 301. Servend was also found to be missing along with one small box containing 100 feet pipe of 3/8” made in Canada, bearing Part No.200-0160 x 100 and installation kit were also found missing in transit. The matter was also reported to the opposite party as well as police for indemnification of the loss of Rs.2,37,120/- being the cost of said machine. A survey in this regard was carried out by Sh. P.D.Sarda, Surveyor, 11, Mritunjay Nagar, Old Itarsi (MP) who vide his report reference No.251/08-08/OIC/Marine dated 25.01.2009 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,42,240/- including survey fee. The same was also submitted to the opposite party (Ann F). It is further alleged that earlier Divisional Office being D.O.-1 merged with Divisional Office of the Opposite Party at Payal Cinema Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon and the complainant started following up with the OP for pending claims including the aforesaid claim and also wrote a letter dated 25.11.2010 (Ann-G) in this regard and submitted copies of all the relevant documents required by the opposite party. Complainant again sent a letter dated 25.06.2011 (Ann-H). In response to the above the complainant received a letter dated 01.09.2011 from the OP informing that the opposite party has not received any claim files from the opposite party DO-1 pertaining to the claims lodged by the complainant and after merger of DO-1, Gurgaon with the opposite party the computer system is not showing any pending claims in the claims outstanding register. It was further informed that the opposite party has not received any document and showed their inability to dispose off the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.09.2011 (Ann-I). The complainant also submitted legal notice dated 07.11.2012 but of no use (An-J). Thus, the action of the OP amounts to deficiency of service on its part. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.2,42,240/- as assessed by the surveyor towards cost of the goods with interest @ 18 % p.a. He also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lac and litigation expenses of Rs.75,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the other documents.
2 OP in its written reply has alleged that the complainant had not submitted any paper in the office of the OP at the time of the claim and surveyor Mr. P.D.Sharda, and Old Itarsi MP were arranged by the insured himself for damages and non delivery of machines dispatched by the insured to M/s PepsiCo India Pvt. Ltd vide Truck No.HR-69-5059 and thus, the complainant failed to comply with the condition of the insurance policy which is as under:
“6 months from knowledge of loss in case of damages & 6 months from the date on which the goods should have normally arrived in case of non-delivery, notice is mandatory u/s 10 of the Common Carriers Act.
Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we come to the conclusion that the complainant has not completed the formalities as required by the OP vide letter dated 03.02.2009 (Ex.CW-1/10). Therefore, we direct the complainant to fulfill the required formalities mentioned in Ex.CW-1/10 within one month of this order and thereafter we direct the OP to process the claim of the complainant within two months. However, it is ordered that the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum, if aggrieved by the process of the OP.
Accordingly, the complaint stands disposed of. The parties concerned by communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
06.07.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach)
Member
