Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant firm is proprietorship firm and Naval Kumar is sole proprietor of the complainant concern and the said concern is doing work for earning livelihood. The complainant availed the insurance policy marine Inland Transit Open Policy from Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No. 401900/21/14/414/00000042 for the period from 6.6.2014 to midnight of 5.6.2015. The complainant sent one consignment of kitted cloth through Opposite Party No.2 vide GR No. 818962 dated 6.12.2014 for its destination at Ranchi in favour of Hanuman Textiles, Ghagra Road, Gumla Ranchi vide bill No. 1522 dated 6.12.2014 for total sum of Rs.29,850/-. At the time of sending consignment through Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that the aforesaid consignment shall reach at its destination as early as possible. But after a period of long time, when the goods were not reached at its destination and the complainant did not receive its acknowledgement, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 and enquired the matter regarding its consignment, but the matter was lingered on by Opposite Party No.2 on one pretext or the other.  It is pertinent to mention over here that aforesaid goods were transported during the existence and validity of the insurance policy taken by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1, but however, no terms and conditions of the policy were ever explained  or supplied by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. At last, Opposite Party No.2 disclosed that the consignment has not reached at its destination by Opposite Party No.2 during transportation and short certificate dated 15.1.2015 issued by Opposite Party No.3 of facts for non delivery of the goods. The complainant  lodged the claim on 2.4.2015 regarding loss suffered by the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 appraised claimant that actual claim can only be lodged with the submission of short certificate only, as such there is no delay on part of the complainant.  But the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainant.    Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.29,850/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its dispatch till its actual realization.

b)      Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as damages and compensation to the complainant causing mental harassment.

c)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay complete cost of the present litigation.

d)      The complainant may kindly be awarded any other relief to which he is found legally entitled to under the law, equity and justice. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the present complaint is legally not maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of the court; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant intimated the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the fact that consignment booked vide CR No. 818962 dated  6.12.2014 of  Purvanchal Freight Carriers Private Limited, booked Ex.Amritsar to Ranchi had not reached his destination and has been lost in transit first time on 2.4.2015. The replying Opposite Party vide letter dated 8.4.2015 asked the complainant the reasons for late intimation to the Opposite Party, but the complainant gave reply to the letter dated 8.4.2015 vide letter dated 27.7.2015 which was received in the office of Opposite Party No.1 on 5.8.2015 after lapse of 4 months. The Opposite Party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that in case of any loss to consignment during transit, the same must be reported to the nearest office of the company at destination but in the present case, loss was reported after lapse of 4 months. In the letter dated 27.7.2015, the complainant has nowhere mentioned about short certificate dated 15.1.2015 which clearly shows that short certificate dated 15.1.2015 is antedated document which has been created by the complainant in connivance with Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that in case of any loss to consignment during transit, the same must be reported to the nearest office or the company at destination, but in the present case loss was reported after lapse of 4 months.  On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum. 

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A  in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Punit Kanodia, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated  the facts as narrated in the compliant and contended that complainant availed the insurance policy marine Inland Transit Open Policy from Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No. 401900/21/14/414/00000042 for the period from 6.6.2014 to midnight of 5.6.2015. The complainant sent one consignment of kitted cloth through Opposite Party No.2 vide GR No. 818962 dated 6.12.2014 for its destination at Ranchi in favour of Hanuman Textiles, Ghagra Road, Gumla Ranchi vide bill No. 1522 dated 6.12.2014 for total sum of Rs.29,850/-. At the time of sending consignment through Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that the aforesaid consignment shall reach at its destination as early as possible. But after a period of long time, when the goods were not reached at its destination and the complainant did not receive its acknowledgement, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 and enquired the matter regarding its consignment, but the matter was lingered on by Opposite Party No.2 on one pretext or the other.  It is pertinent to mention over here that aforesaid goods were transported during the existence and validity of the insurance policy taken by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1, but however, no terms and conditions of the policy were ever explained  or supplied by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. At last, Opposite Party No.2 disclosed that the consignment has not reached at its destination by Opposite Party No.2 during transportation and short certificate dated 15.1.2015 issued by Opposite Party No.3 of facts for non delivery of the goods. The complainant  lodged the claim on 2.4.2015 regarding loss suffered by the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 appraised claimant that actual claim can only be lodged with the submission of short certificate only, as such there is no delay on part of the complainant.  But the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainant. 

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  the complainant intimated the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the fact that consignment booked vide CR No. 818962 dated  6.12.2014 of  Purvanchal Freight Carriers Private Limited, booked Ex.Amritsar to Ranchi had not reached his destination and has been lost in transit first time on 2.4.2015. The replying Opposite Party vide letter dated 8.4.2015 asked the complainant the reasons for late intimation to the Opposite Party, but the complainant gave reply to the letter dated 8.4.2015 vide letter dated 27.7.2015 which was received in the office of Opposite Party No.1 on 5.8.2015 after lapse of 4 months. The Opposite Party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that in case of any loss to consignment during transit, the same must be reported to the nearest office of the company at destination but in the present case, loss was reported after lapse of 4 months. In the letter dated 27.7.2015, the complainant has nowhere mention about short certificate dated 15.1.2015 which clearly shows that short certificate dated 15.1.2015 is antedated document which has been created by the complainant in connivance with Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that in case of any loss to consignment during transit, the same must be reported to the nearest office or the company at destination, but in the present case loss was reported after lapse of 4 months. Hence, there is no lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The case of the complainant is that the goods could not reach at its destination due to its loss during the transport which is clearly negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The aforesaid goods were transported during the existence and validity of the insurance policy taken by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1. the complainant has further contended that due to non delivery of short certificate within time, the Opposite Party No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Short certificate dated 15.1.2015 was not sent by Opposite Party No.3 to the complainant directly but it was sent by Opposite Party No.2 having its place of business  at Amritsar in an envelop and the said envelop containing short certificate dated 15.1.2015 was delivered by local office at Amritsar i.e. Opposite Party No.2 to complainant on 30.3.2015 and without any loss of time after receiving the short certificate  claim was lodged by the complainant on 2.4.2015 regarding loss suffered by the complainant. But to defend its case, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  despite due service for the reasons best known to them and was proceeded against exparte.  So in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is lapse on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by  not sending the short certificate to the complainant within time schedule regarding the loss of consignment. Hence, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3   are definitely liable to make good the loss of the complainant.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  to make good the loss of the complainant and make the payment of  Rs.29,850/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3      shall make the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realisation.  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  shall also pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of compensation besides Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 stands dismissed.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum