ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD V/S M/S NAGA ELIT ENTERPRISES - Consumer Court Case

Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/109/2014

M/S NAGA ELIT ENTERPRISES - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2015

ORDER

Heading1

Heading2

Complaint Case No. CC/109/2014

1. M/S NAGA ELIT ENTERPRISES

NEPALI KASHIRAM BASTI DIMAPUR NAGALAND

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

ASAF ALI ROAD ND 2

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
	HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER

For the Complainant:

For the Opp. Party:

ORDER

Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President

All the seven complaints are between the same parties and contain a common set of facts. These complaints are ,therefore, being disposed off by this single common order.

The facts in brief leading to the filing of the complaints are as under:-

Complaint Number 108/2014

The complainant is engaged in the business of supply and contract works and is the registered contractor under Assam rifle Department having its head office at Nepali Kashiram Basti, Dimapur, Nagaland and Branch office at Silchar (Assam), Imphal (Manipur). The complainant had purchased packets of Toned milk (Tetra pack) Gopaljee brand from M/s G K Dairy & Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana on 10.1.2010. The complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the OP for covering the risk in respect of the aforesaid goods. It is alleged by the complainant that the policy was purchased/issued by Faridabad office as the goods were purchased from Faridabad and were to be transported from the said place. The consignment of Tetra milk were booked under CN No. 33407, 33408, 33409,33410,33411,33413, 33414, 33415, 33416, 33417 and 33418 dated 10.1.2010 from ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana to Delhi by truck. From Delhi to Guwahti the goods were transported under RR No. 212046992, 21206984 and 21206981 dated 11.1.2010. From Guwahti to Imphal the consignment was carried to road transport by East India Transport Service Organisation under CN No. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011 and 1012 dated 17.1.2010.

From Guwahati to Imphal consignment was transported in vehicle no. NL-01/0191, NL-01-D-4836, NL-05-D-6713, NL-01-A-8931, MN-01-7299, NL-01-A-7493, NL-01-A-6698, NLN-580, NL-02-D-3696, MN-01-7490 and NL-05-A-8231 and the vehicle arrived at Imphal on 25.1.2010. On arrival at Imphal it was noticed that consignment was very badly damaged. A certificate to this effect was delivered by the transporter on 25.1.2010. The complainant had informed the OP about the damage to the consignment upon which the OP had appointed Sh. F Nabha Chandra Singha as the surveyor. The surveyor after inspection of the consignment had assessed the loss vide his report dated 5.5.2010. It is alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that all requisite documents were furnished to the OP and several requests were made for settlement of the claim, the OP did not settle the claim and rather repudiated the same vide its letter dated 28.9.2010. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and had firstly approached the District Consumer Forum, Dimapur, Nagaland by means of a complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act. However, on an objection having been raised by the OP with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Forum, the complainant withdrew the complaints with liberty to file them before an appropriate Forum. The complainant, thereafter, approached this Forum with the afore- mentioned complaints.

The facts of complaint numbers 109 /2014 to 113/2014 are similar and are not reproduced for sake of brevity.

The OP has contested the complaints and has filed separate but identical written statements. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that it had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy purchased by the complainant. Para 2 of the preliminary objection to the W.S. filed by the OP is relevant for decision of the complaint and reproduced as under:-

Para 2:- That the complainant obtained a Marine Cargo Open Policy bearing NO. 272400/21/2010/377 for the period 5.1.2010 to 4.1.2011 for a sum insured of Rs.2,50,000/- and as per the policy, the risk was covered for the Voyage from Delhi to anywhere in India. During this period of insurance policy, a claim was lodged by the complainant on account of the damage caused to its consignment while it was being transported to Imphal. As per the claim of the complainant, it purchased certain packets of tonned milk of Gopaljee Brand from M/s G K Dairy & Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., situated at 196/231, Sikri Harphala Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad against different invoices. The said consignment was transported from Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana to Delhi Kishanganj Railway Station by truck. The same was further transported from Delhi to Guwahati by Railway and from Guwahati to Imphal by road transport through M/s East India Transport Service Organization. Further as per the complainant when the consignment was arrived at Imphal on 25.1.2010, the said consignment was found damaged. The certificate was issued by the Transporter and on account of the damage caused to the consignment of the complainant, a claim was lodged by the complainant on 25.1.2010. After receiving the claim intimation, the OP appointed Sh. F Naba Chandra Singha as Surveyor to survey and assess the damage caused to the consignment of the complainant. Though the said surveyor submitted his report dated 5.5.2010 thereby assessing the damage to the consignment but the same was payable subject to the insurance policy. After receiving the survey report, the claim of the complainant was scrutinized by the competent authority and the opposite party vide its letter dated 28.9.2010 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that under the insurance policy in question, the coverage of the consignment of the goods was issued from Delhi whereas in the case of the complainant, the consignment was transported not from Delhi but from Ballabgarh, Faridabad. The policy in question was not issued for covering the risk of the consignment while being transported from Ballabgarh, Faridabad bu;t from Delhi to anywhere in India. Since the transportation of the goods was from Ballabhgarh, Faridabad from where the complainant had purchased the consignment, the same was not covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party as “NO CLAIM” and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 28.9.2010.

The OP has contested the complaint on merits and has reiterated that the claim was not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance purchased by the complainant. It has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

The facts are not much in dispute. It is admitted on record that the complainant had purchased a Marine Cargo Open Policy from the OP to cover the risk during voyage in respect of the consignment of tetra packets containing milk. The policy was effective for the period 5.1.2010 to 4.1.2011. It is not disputed that the consignment of milk was found to be in a damaged condition at its destination in Imphal on 25.1.2010. It is also not disputed that the complainant had duly informed the OP about the loss upon which the OP had appointed Sh. F Nabha C Singha as a surveyor to survey and assess the loss. It is also not disputed that the surveyor had filed a report dated 5.5.2010 and had made an assessment about the loss to the consignment. The OP however has not acted on the report of the surveyor and has repudiated the claim on the ground that there was a violation of the policy terms and conditions. It has contended that the consignment ought to have been booked from Delhi whereas it was booked from Ballabgarh.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention raised on both sides. Whereas it has been contended on behalf of the complainant that it had been represented to him that since the goods were to be purchased from Ballabgarh,Faridabad which is within the NCR region and is at a distance of about 50 k.m. from Delhi it will make no difference as to whether the goods are booked from Ballabgarh or Delhi. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has, however, contended that the terms and conditions of the policy had to be strictly complied with and that it was imperative on the part of the complainant to have booked the consignment from Delhi.

An insurance contract is a contract of indemnity and by entering into such a contract the insurance company undertakes the liability to insured for the loss suffered by him due to peril against the consideration received by it. It has, however, been observed that insurance companies repudiate claims on one pretext or the other and on whims and fancies. Courts on a number of occasions have impressed upon the officers dealing with the passage of the claims to act in a manner which advances the purpose of an insurance contract and not to repudiate the claims on flimsy grounds.

Coming to the facts of the complaints in hand, it has to be noted that there has been a substantial compliance by the complainant of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance purchased by it. The only deviation on the part of the complainant has been that it had booked the consignment from Ballabgarh rather than from Delhi. We fail to understand as to why it should adversely affect the claim lodged by the complainant under the policy. We have noted that the surveyor in his report dated 5.5.2010 has clearly indicated that the loss/ damage to the consignment had occurred during transit from Dimapur to Imphal on account of transhipment conditions such as chains of stacking/ shocking/ jerking / tilted down impacts inside the lorry. The booking of the consignment at Balabgarh had, therefore, in no way impacted the damage to the consignment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the OP has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds.we hold the OP deficient in rendering services to the complainant and direct it as under:

1. In complaint number 108/2014

a. pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 124540/- (one Lakh twenty-four thousand, five hundred and forty Only) along with interest @ 10% p.a. From the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 1.4.2014 till payment.