PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is the complaint regarding repudiation of the insurance claim of the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 on frivolous grounds as alleged by the Complainant.
2) The facts of this complaint as stated by the Complainant are that, the Complainant is all India Road Transport organization. It has taken a Transit-cum- Storage Insurance Policy No.260800/21/05/4400000015, valid from 01/04/05 to 31/03/06 from Opposite Party No.1.
3) The Complainant has further stated that, it lodged the insurance claim. The details of which are mentioned below – During validity of insurance policy, on 27/09/05, the Consigner M/s. Natasha Industries, booked the consignment consisting of 181 cartons of computers, cabinets with SMPS and 9 cartons of spare parts vide GC No.9169022. The consignment was to be transported from Daman to Lacknow. The insurance claim was for Rs.22,602/-. The events concerning the claim are as follows -
Dec., 2005– While the consignment was carried from Daman to Lacknow, during the transit, the consignment was damaged.
04/04/06 - Survey was carried out by one Mr. Gautam Desai.
08/08/06 - The Complainant forwarded the original survey report, survey fees bill, photo invoice copy, Docket No.9169022, original claim letter, original letter from M/s. Natasha Industries to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Vulcan International Broker.
25/06/07 - Complainant’s Executive Director visited to the office. He was assured about the claim.
28/06/07 - Complainant’s letter to Opposite Party No.1.
05/07/07 - Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter dtd.05/07/07 to Opposite Party No.1 to look into the matter and to settle the claim.
10/09/08 – Letter dtd.10/09/08 from Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant stating that they are taking up the mater with Mumbai regional office II.
Nov., 08 - No specific date is mentioned in the complaint but it is stated that, the Complainant visited Opposite Party.
09/02/09 - Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dtd.09/02/09 repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the details were not submitted on time. 15/04/09 - Complainant refuted the contents of the above letter of Opposite Party No.1.
27/06/09 - Legal notice was sent through the Advocate of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 calling upon Opposite Party No.1 to release the claim amount.
4) The Complainant has finally claimed the following reliefs -
a) Insurance claim of Rs.22,602/- in respect of NI/066/05-06/GC9189022 (damage to the cartons containing computers).
b) Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for causing losses, inconvenience, and mental agony, etc.
c) cost of Rs.50,000/- for filing the complaint.
d) 18 % interest on the above amount from the date of entitlement of the claim.
5) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the relevant documents such as policy document, survey report and correspondence between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, between Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.1 and notice from Advocate of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
6)The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. However, Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Forum inspite of service of notice on it. Hence, ex-parte order was passed against Opposite Party No.2 vide Roznama dtd.07/02/2011. The Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this Forum on 07/02/2011 and promised to file written statement of Opposite Party No.1 but subsequently failed to attend this Forum till the oral argument on 03/08/2011. Therefore, an order had been passed in this behalf on 28/03/2011 that the matter is to be heard without the written statement of Opposite Party No.1. Meanwhile, the Complainant filed its affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein the facts mentioned in the complaint are reiterated. The Complainant has also filed the additional written argument wherein it has raised the point of limitation for filing the case from the cause of action. The Ld.Advocate argued the matter orally on 03/08/2011. We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and perused all the above said papers filed by the Complainant and our findings are as follows.
7) The Complainant had obtained a Transit-cum-Storage Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.1. During the validity of this policy, in the month of December, the consignment consisting of 181 cartons of computers and cabinets 9 cartons of spare parts was being transported from Daman to Lacknow. During the transit this consignment was damaged, may be due to internal banging of cartons and/or improper handling, etc. The damaged cabinets were rejected by the Consignee & reshipped to the Consignor. Upon receipt of the damaged units at transporters Vapi office the transporter requested for survey/assessment of loss. The surveyor assessed the damage/loss. Surveyor found only 31 units damaged. Remaining were accepted by the Consigner. The value assessed of the damaged 31 cabinets was of Rs.19,352.81 + survey fee Rs.2,500/-.
8) From the complaint it is not revealed as to when actual damage to the goods occurred during the transit, but when the survey report was perused it is seen that the consignment has arrived at the destination on 31/12/05. Surveyor was appointed on 31/12/05. The survey was made on 31/12/05 and place of survey is at Vapi office of the Complainant. This indicates that the consignment was damaged before 31/12/05 but there is no any document to show when the information about the loss/damage was given to the Opposite Party No.1. The survey report itself indicates that the survey is dtd.04/04/06 i.e. after more than 3 months and there after on 08/08/06 i.e. after 7 months the Complainant had submitted the original report to the Opposite Party No.2 and not to Opposite Party No.1. On 28/06/07, i.e. after one and ½ years, the Complainant has written a letter to Opposite Party No.1. In this letter there is no mention about the claim in respect of GC No.9169022 of Rs.22,602/-. It is not known whey this letter dtd.28/06/07 was attached with the complaint when there is not mention of the relevant claim in this letter. After that the Opposite Party No.2 has communicated to the Opposite Party No.1 vide his letter dtd.05/07/07 stating that the original documents sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.2 are not traceable. He (Opposite Party No.1) would send the copies of these documents (regarding the claim of Rs.22,602/-) to Opposite Party No.2 shortly. This means that the claim and its documents were not sent to the Opposite Party No.1 till 05/07/07 after the date of incident (i.e. on 31/12/05 or so). It appears from the letter dtd.24/08/07 only that the Complainant has enclosed the photocopies of the documents of the Claim No.NI66105-06 (GC No.9169022) i.e. after one year and ½ years.
9) Under the above circumstances the Opposite Party No.1 has communicated to the Complainant vide its letter dtd.09/02/09 that the claims were closed as no claims as the Complainant has not submitted the required details in time to the Opposite Party No.1.
10) We perused the insurance policy, document. It contains the procedure to be followed for the submitting the claims. Under this head, it is clearly stipulated that -
a) A proper notice of claim specifying the details of consignment, nature and extent of loss/damage and amount of compensation duly signed by the representative of the consignee/consigner shall be obtained by the insured.
d) In the vent of loss/damage to the consignment caused by accident/ collusion/fire/riot/or strike and such other perils during the transit, immediate notice shall be given to the insurer for their arranging survey of the consignments covered therein.
e) Consigner/Consignee shall submit all such documents in support of their claim to the insured/insurer (In this case, the insured shall submit the documents to the insurer).
11) In this case the above procedure stipulated in the policy documents is not followed by the Complainant. From the documents submitted by the Complainant itself it is revealed that only the photo copies of the documents in support of the claim of Rs.22,602/- were submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 after more than one and half years after the incident.
12) From the above facts it is clear that the Complainant has not followed the procedure prescribed in the policy document and there is a gross breach of procedure laid down for submission of the claim. In view of the above observations we do not find any merits in this complaint and as such we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i)Complaint No.247/2010 is hereby dismissed for want of merits.
ii)There is no order as to cost.
iii)Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties.
