Per Mr.Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member
This is a consumer complaint u/s.12 r/w.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [‘CP Act’ in brief]
[1] Complainant is holder of marine policy and therefore ‘consumer’ whereas; opponent is insurance company which provided a cover under contract of indemnity and therefore is a service provider within the meaning of CP Act.
[2] Complainant is a company dealing with import-export manufacturing of transformer core lines/lamination steel coils having factory at Silvassa and Palghar.
Opponent is in business of general insurance.
[3] Upon payment of premium of Rs.6,886.50 ps., the complainant drawn marine cargo import specific policy for the cargo i.e.CRGO electrical steel coils weighing 44.00 MT for voyage from any US port to Nhava-Sheva and Thence to final destination for sum of Rs.94,38,500/-, covering all risk.
[4] The consignment weighing 37.017 MT was imported it was loaded on vessel. The vessel left port of Norfolk US. It arrived at Nhava-Sheva, India. The consignment was unloaded. The same was entrusted to Maateshwary Transport, Mumbai the inland transporters. The transporter issued GC on 25/07/2006. The consignment was carried in truck no.MH-06-AC-2732.
[5] The truck met with an accident at Modgaon, Udhava, Talasary. The accident was reported to Kasa Police Station. Police prepared Panchnamas. The complainant informed the opponent by a letter dated 28/07/2006. The opponent appointed surveyor and made a report. Complainant lodged a claim. Opponent repudiated the claim. The damage was accidental still the opponent repudiated the claim on irrelevant grounds. The act of the opponent is in violation of the Act and is an attempt to shirk the liability. The rejection of the claim is unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. Complainant suffered loss of Rs.78,75,701/- and claimed compensation to make the loss good in view of contract of indemnity.
The complainant relies upon the insurance policy [Exh.B], police papers and panchmana [Exh-D], letter of intimation [Exh-E], also produced letter of repudiation on record and the affidavit of evidence.
[6] The opponent filed written version dated 25/07/2007 to deny the liability. It is submitted that as per the term covered by clause 4.3 in the agreement. The contract was rightfully repudiated. The loss, damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing or preparation of the subject matter insured is excluded. The liability limited to 75% in case of loss due to private carrier, there is a liability on the bailees and the third party whereby the insured requires to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimizing the loss. It is submitted that as per the relevant marine insurance policy. The unsuitability of packing includes stowage. Moreover, the carrying capacity was 23.6 MT as against this weight of consignment was carried 36.76 MT. And on such other grounds, the opponent justified the repudiation of the claim.
Opponent relied on relevant papers such as goods carriage permit of the vehicle Exh.II, the survey report and assessment of loss by surveyor at Exh.III.
[7] In the background of this fact, we have heard arguments of learned Adv.Bhakti Barve for the complainant and learned advocate Mr.S.R.Singh for the opponent. We have also perused the documents and pleadings.
[8] Incidence of accident due to overloading is not denied by the complainant. Repudiation of the claim is made by invoking policy terms and conditions clause 4.3 which relates to unsuitability of packing as it was disturbed because of stowage. Observation of the official surveyor in this behalf are appearing in the opening para of the survey report which is amply clear which reads as follow:
Coil covered with polyethylene sheet and further covered in corrugated type polyethylene sheet pasted at top side cardboard disc bottom side wooden pallet.
[9] On carefully going through the observation regarding packing, it is evident that after stowage the consignment was not packed at the time of loading at Nhava-Sheva.
[10] Even otherwise, there is no damage certificate issued by the carrier nor there is any statement in the complaint about no claim preferred against the carrier i.e. third party. In view of this, repudiation of the claim cannot be faulted with and no deficiency can be attributed on this account against the opponent insurance company. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the order as below:
ORDER
- Consumer complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
- One set of the complaint compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the complainant.
- Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost forthwith.
Pronounced
Dated 05th August, 2015.
