ORDER

Paramjit Singh (President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant took a Marine Insurance Policy from opposite party vide cover No.0011495 dated 22.5.2008 for Rs.8,00,000/- vide which complainant insured Cricket Sets which were to be imported from Brisbane (Australia) to Jalandhar (India) and premium of Rs.800/- was paid in advance.

2. It is further alleged that unfortunately when Consignment of

-2-

Cricket Sets reached to the complainant. they were found to be in damaged condition. He immediately lodged the claim with the opposite party under the said policy. That after receiving the intimation from complainant, the opposite appointed their surveyor to assess the loss and the complainant supplied all the necessary documents to the surveyor for assessment of the loss. Thereafter, the surveyor submitted his report to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- to the opposite party for payment of the claim, but till date, the opposite party has not paid the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant made several requests as well as also visited the opposite party for settlement of his claim, but the opposite party refused to give any explanation. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 10.9.2009 upon the opposite party, but to effect. Hence this is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the present complaint.

2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising as many as six preliminary objections such as the complainant has no cause of action, the complainant is not consumer of opposite party as the contract of insurance is for commercial purpose this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands etc. etc. On merits, the opposite party pleaded that the complainant failed to furnish damage certificate from the concerned transporter, so his claim was rejected. The opposite party refuted each and every point raised in the complaint.

-3-

3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4. On the other hand the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OA along with document ExO1 to Ex.O12 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties . The counsel for the complainant argues that Jyoti Sharma is the proprietor of M/s. Spartan Sports Industries and he is doing this business for earning his livelihood and the branch office of National Insurance Company Ltd. which issued the insurance cover note is having its head quarter at Kapurthala and this is the branch office which has the business to decide the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant argues that Jyoti Sharma proprietor is verymuch consumer and this Consumer Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.

7 In this case, both the parties admitted that Marine Insurance Policy was issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant informed the opposite party that the complainant has received the consignment of Cricket Sets in a damaged condition and the complainant immediately lodged the claim with the opposite party. It is also admitted by the counsel for the opposite party that they appointed their surveyor after receiving the claim from the complainant The case of the opposite party is that the complainant failed to supply the

-4-

necessary documents to the surveyor which were demanded by him for reaching at a just and proper decision.

8. We have perused Ex.O6 which is the report of the surveyor and loss assessor. In his report, he had covered the risk as per the cargo clauses. This loss was caused due to rainy water and jerks and jolts in transit and mishandling at transshipment point. As per the information of the surveyor this type of loss can occurred in this way. The surveyor has also assessed the salvage value as Rs.70450/- and he had deducted this salvage value from his estimated loss at the rate of Rs.50/- per Cricket Set after confirming the value from the local market and lateron, the insured agreed to take the salvage after a long discussion with the surveyor. As per surveyor report Ex.O6, net loss comes to Rs.3,94,816/- and this report is strictly as per the terms, conditions and exception of the policy and the surveyor has submitted his report without any prejudice. In this case, the surveyor was appointed by the opposite party and this fact is admitted in the written statement and after that surveyor had submitted his report. It was duty of the opposite party to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. In this case, the surveyor vide report dated 21.9.2008 had assessed the net loss of Rs.3,94,816/- .

In view of the above discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd. Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala, through its Branch Manager to pay Rs.3,94,816/- . with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of its realization, besides

-5-

Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated: Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

13.05.2010 Member Member President