Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/126/2012

J.G.Hosiery Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance - Opp.Party(s)

Ram & Veera

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 01.01.2010

Date of Reservation      : 29.06.2022

Date of Order               : 15.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 126/2012

FRIDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2022

J.G. Hosiery Private Limited,

39,(1), Om Sakthi Koil Street,

Tirupur 641 607.                                                                ... Complainant                              

 

..Vs..

Royal Sundaram Alliance,

Insurance Company Limited,

Registered Office:21, Patullos Road,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                         ... Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Ram & Veera

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. M.B.Gopalan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party and reply arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to directing the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,21,465/- together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 13.03.2008 till date of payment and direct the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages and costs.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is a manufacturer of hosiery innerwear, having its factories at Kolkata and Tirupur. "AMUL" brand hosiery goods manufactured by the Complainant are popular in different regions of the country. Such hosiery goods that are manufactured at Tirupur are transported to Complainant's eleven branches located in different places in India and to the distributors of Complainant in the southern region of Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. For the purpose of covering the goods so transported from Tirupur with appropriate transit insurance, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party's office at Coimbatore, held discussions with their officials and then submitted a letter dated 18.5.2007 to the Opposite Party for the insurance coverage required by the Complainant. A list of the addresses of the eleven branches of the Complainant was attached to the said letter dated 18.5.2007. The Complainant also paid to the Opposite Party the required initial premium of Rs.28,090, by cheque no.291423 dated 18.5.2007, drawn on UTI Bank, for which the Opposite Party issued a formal receipt, through a Receipt Voucher Number 0700067470 dated 21.5.2007. The Opposite Party also issued their Marine Cargo Open Policy, bearing policy number MC00003195000100. dated 18.5.2007, and thus a contract of insurance was formed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Complainant does not deal and / or trade in insurance business. The insurance policy was purchased by the Complainant not for resale and /or for any commercial purpose,i.e., not for making profit, but only to replenish the actual loss and damage that the insured Complainant might suffer in case of occurrence of any insured peril. The Complainant is a consumer of insurance services, entitled to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party insurer as per law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC)].  During the subsistence of the above-referred insurance policy the Complainant sent by road from Tirupur, by way of stock transfer, to the Jaipur branch of the Complainant at 216, Amar Vijay Complex, San Sar Chandra Road, Jaipur 302 001, four consignments of hosiery goods on two different dates through a carrier, M/s Om Transport Corporation. Such goods were booked for transport through the Tirupur office of the transporters, for which they issued their lorry receipts. Being stock transfers, the consignor and the consignee under those lorry receipts were one and the same person, viz., the Complainant.   The aforesaid four consignments reached the godown of the transporters at Jaipur on 30.12.2007 in sound condition. On the intervening night of 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008 there was a fire at the transporters godown at Jaipur completely gutting the insured hosiery goods of the Complainant, that were covered under the aforesaid four stock transfer challans and four lorry receipts. Thus the said goods were completely lost in that fire before they could be delivered to the Complainant at Jaipur, as consignee under the relevant lorry receipts.  The Complainant personally informed the Opposite Party about the damage to the above-referred insured goods at Jaipur, when such goods were with the transporter at Jaipur, as followed up through Complainant's email of 2.1.2008 addressed to Mr. Gnana Sekaran of the Opposite Party. The said Mr. Gnana Sekaran had been informing the Complainant now and then that the claim of the Complainant was being processed and that the Opposite Party was awaiting the surveyor's report. The Complainant then sent another email to the said Mr. Gnana Sekaran of the Opposite Party on 7.3.2008 enquiring about the status of the Complainant's claim. The Opposite Party engaged a surveyor, M/s Protocol Surveyors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Noida, who made the survey and, through their report dated 12.3.2008, confirmed the arrival of the four transported consignments in question at the godown of the transporters at Jaipur on 30.12.2007. the occurrence of fire in that godown on the intervening night of 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008, at about 2.05 a.m., and the total destruction and loss of the goods covered by the said four consignments. The Opposite Party had registered the Complainant's insurance claim as Marine Claim No.MC00016717. However the Opposite Party did not accept their liability under the insurance policy. The Corporate Claims Department of the Opposite Party at 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014, by their letter dated 13.3.2008 addressed to the Complainant repudiated their liability, wrongly and illegally, on an incorrect and impermissible interpretation of the policy and incorrect reading of relevant facts. On 14.5.2008 the Complainant also wrote to the transporters, M/s Om Transport Corporation, at Jaipur, lodging a claim to compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.10,21,465 (i.e., for the value of the said four consignments in a sum of Rs.9,28,605 and for Rs.92,860 for other expenses and additional expenses and loss of profit as a percentage of net value). The transporters replied to the Complainant on 20.5.2008, but while not denyin the loss of Complainant's goods when they were in the custody of the transporters, they effused, on untenable grounds, to accept liability. It is submitted that such wrongful reputation by the Opposite Party, as also its refusal to change its view, amounts to deficiency in service. The cause of action for the present complaint arose on 18.5.2007 when the Opposite Party issued their insurance policy, on 21.5.2007 when the Opposite Party issued their receipt for Rs 28,090 being the initial premium paid by the Complainant, on 20.12.2007 and 24.12.2007 when the Complainant despatched goods from Tinupur to Jaipur under the four lorry receipts above-mentioned, on the intervening night of 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008 when a fire occurred at the transporters' godown at Jaipur completely gutting the consignments in question, on 2.1.2008 and on 7.3.2008 when the Complainant sent emails to the Opposite Party to pursue their claim on the Opposite  Party under the insurance policy issued to the Complainant, on 13.3.2008 when the d Corporate Claims Department at 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014, Opposite Party repudiated, from their liability as an insurer and issued their letter of repudiation dated 13.3.2008 from their said Corporate Claims Department at the said address at Chennai. It is submitted that part of the cause of action (which is also the most proximate cause of action) for the present claim has arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, in that on 13.3.2008 the Opposite Party repudiated their liability as an insurer from within such territorial limits, i.c., from their Corporate Claims Department at 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014, and in that the Opposite Party also issued their letter of repudiation dated 13.3.2008 from within such territorial limits, i.e., from their said address at Chennai, evidencing such repudiation. This Hon'ble Forum has therefore jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Sec.11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Additionally, the fact that the registered office of the Opposite Party company is located within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Forum, viz., at 21 Patullos Road, Chennai 600 002, is also an independent factor by itself to confer jurisdiction on this Hon'ble Forum to entertain the present complaint. Despite several letters written by the Complainant, explaining how the Opposite Party was wrong in 4 denying its liability, the Opposite Party persisted in its wrong and motivated stand. The Opposite Party last wrote to the Complainant in this regard 18.3.2009 refusing to change its view taken in its letter of repudiation dated 13.3.2008. Thereafter the Complainant wrote to the Opposite Party on 16.6.2009, again requesting the Opposite Party to accede to the request of the Complainant, with detailed explanations, that the Opposite Party duly discharge their liability as insurer under their insurance policy. However the Opposite p party did not respond. In order to avoid time-consuming legal proceedings the Complainant waited to see if good sense would prevail upon the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party has continued to remain silent and unresponsive. Moreover, the Complainant's Administrative Office located at Kolkata, which is the seat of management of the company, had to consult and take advice from its trusted advocate at Kolkata, Mr. N. R. Mukherjee, for commencing legal proceedings against the Opposite Party. The said advocate's mother, Smt. Suchorita Mukherjee, was unfortunately ailing for over fifteen months, and was also being treated in a hospital, Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata, until she expired on 10 October 2010, because of which the said advocate could not devote enough time on his clients' papers and for conferring with clients, and consequently the Complainant could not have effective consultations, during a very long period, with its said trusted advocate to decide on the present legal action and prepare for the same. Besides, after he could devote time for the instant case by and by, the Complainant's said advocate at Kolkata had to locate a counsel at Chennai and instruct him on the present case for commencing the present legal proceedings, which consumed further unavoidable time, particularly in the study of details and preparation by such Chennai counsel. Added to that was the intervening Navarathri celebrations and connected court holidays in Tamil Nadu and Durga Puja festivities and all-round holidays in Kolkata (ending with 17th October 2010) which slowed collection of relevant documents and transmission of effective communications between the Complainant's Chennai counsel and other concerned persons. In these circumstances, when the two-year period of limitation under Sec.24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act is to be computed from 13.3.2008, the day the Opposite Party repudiated their liability, there would be a delay of 233 days or thereabout in the filing of the present complaint. It is submitted that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the filing of the present complaint. A separate application under Sec.24A(2) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, is being taken out by the Complainant for such condonation of delay. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

Even at the outset the Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has failed to make out any deficiency in service in the complaint. The Complainant had claimed under Marine transit Policy, for damage to stocks which occurred after reaching the destination Jaipur named in the contract of carriage. The Opposite Party had found on verification of the claim that the goods were not actually being delivered to any other office in Jaipur and the Complainant had no facility to receive and handle such stocks. The goods were kept at the Transporter's godown itself and forwarded thereafter as different consignments to customers, based on orders. As far as the particular transit is concerned viz., Tiruppur to Jaipur, it had ended on reaching the final warehouse which was the Transporter's godown in the absence of any other warehouse at Jaipur for the Complainant. The Marine Policy essentially covers damage during transit. In as much as the transit had ended, the Opposite Party found that the claim was not maintainable under the Marine transit Policy. The Opposite Party submits that in the letter of repudiation dated 13.3.2008 and subsequent correspondence dated 3.11.2008, 23.1.2009, 18.3.2009 they had planes and elaborated both legally and factually as to how the claim was not adobe and there was no liability on their part. Thus a bona fide decision on the claim was reached by the Opposite Party after due consideration of facts in the context of the terms and conditions of the Policy, which came in any manner be construed as negligence or deficiency in service, even if the Complainant shoes not accept or agree with the same. The Opposite Party humbly submits that mere disagreement will not suffice to maintain the complaint without actual pleading or proof to show how the decision of the Opposite Party is contrary to the terms of the Policy and amounts to deficiency in service. A perusal of the complaint does not reveal any specific pleading whatsoever to show how the decision of the Opposite Party is bad. Neither relevant facts to contradict the decision nor any specific submission in this regard is found in the complaint. The Complainant has merely referred to correspondence being exchanged but has miserably failed to plead factually how the decision of the Opposite Party is being called in question. The Complainant availed Marine Cargo Open Policy in respect consignment of garments to be sent from Tiruppur to anywhere in India. The Policy is subject to various causes and terms stipulated therein which have to be strictly construed to determine admissibility of any claim. Essentially the Marine Policy covers loss or damage during transit and expires upon the consignment reaching the final destination. There is no cover The Opposite Party denies that t Complainant provided any letter dated 18/5/2007 mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint or provided addresses of its 11 Branch Offices Such allegations are mischievously made for the purpose of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The Policy alone represents the contract and not any such letter.  The Complainant lodged a claim for damage to 4 consignments which were damaged in a fire that occurred at the transporter's godown in Jaipur on 30/12/2007, Immediately the Opposite Party appointed Surveyor and it was found that the said 4 consignments along with various earlier consignments (6) were entrusted for carriage from Tiruppur to Jaipur and had been stored at the Transporter's godown in Jaipur after transit. The different contracts of carriage did not mention any specific address of the Complainant but merely mentioned as 'Jaipur. During Survey it was found that the consignments had arrived on various dates and were lying at the Transporter's godown itself even from 10/12/2007, although Complainant had referred only to 4 consignments which arrived on 30/12/2007. The practice of the Complainant was to store all consignments at the transporter's godown itself from where the goods were sold to different dealers locally by necessary invoices and despatched further through separate Lorry Receipts. The goods on reaching the Transporter's godown appear to have never been taken delivery by the Insured or stored elsewhere in Jaipur but re-dispatched to customers from the said godown itself based on requirements. The intimation of the Transporter to Police also confirmed the same. Thus, as far as the particular transits are concerned they had terminated

on the consignments reaching the Transporter's godown and the coverage thereby ended. Therefore the Opposite Party had denied liability for the loss under the Marine Policy by detailed letter dated 13.3.2008 as the Marine cover ended prior to damage on arrival of the consignments at the Transporter's godown and the termination of transit. The Complainant sought to question the repudiation in subsequent correspondence to which the Opposite Party had provided detailed response and clarification explaining how the claim was not admissible under Marine Policy due to termination of transit before the damage due to fire on 30.12.2007. The Opposite Party craves leave to refer to its letters dated 3.11.2008, 23.1.2009, 18.3.2009.  The claim is not admissible as there was no damage during transit but only after expiry of transit. The complaint is bereft of any pleating by which as there was no damage during transit the Opposite Party is sought to be established untenable and frivolous. The allegations in para 3 as my letter dated 18.5.2007 was submitted by the Complainant informing about addresses of its branch offices are all specifically denied The Policy alone represents the contract and not any such letter, In regard to the allegations in paragraph 4, the Complaint has referred to the Policy in bits and pieces The Opposite Party craves leave to the Policy in the whole, especially final Transit all Head clause Allegations in paragraph 5 have no relevance. Allegations in paragraph 7 are misleading it is not just 4 consignments which were sent. There were 6 other earlier consignments which were also found available at the time of damage on 30.12.2007 and the Complainant had suppressed reference to the same in an attempt to avoid exposure of the fact that various consignments including those claimed were stored and not merely passing through the transporter's godown. This has also been confirmed by the Transporter 'complaint to Police regarding the incident. The reference to the consignments being Stock Transfers is vague and misleading in jaipur, the Complainant had a small office without any storage space for stocking consignments which were found to be stored at the Transparters godown itself until further dispatch to customers. Hence nothing turns on the consignments being Stock Transfers. The Larry Receipts merely refer to Jaipur as the place of destination and not to any specific address, as there was none to deliver the stocks other than the Transporter's godown itself. Hence the transit cover ended on the consignments reaching the Transporter's godown as there was no further transit involved. In regard to the allegations in paragraphs 8 to 10, the Complainant has selectively referred to convenient portions of the Survey Report The Opposite Party craves leave to refer to the Report in full which would reveal on the whole that the Transporter's godown was the place of termination of transit. For valid reasons the claim was declined under letter dated 13.3.2008 of the Opposite party. It is vehemently denied that the repudiation was wrong or illegal or that it was based on incorrect or impermissible interpretation of the Policy. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-36 were marked.   

The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 alone was marked.     

5.Points for consideration:-

1.Whether the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service by repudiating the Insurance claim of the Complainant?

2.whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1

        It is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed Marine Cargo Open Policy bearing No.MC00003195000100 dated 18.05.2007, of the Opposite Party.

        It is also not in dispute that the Policy covers finished garments and fabrics transported from Complainant’s premises at Tirupur to anywhere in India, sum insured is Rs.10 crores and terms and conditions for the transport to be carried under Rail/Road as per Inland Transit (Rail/Road).

        It is also not in dispute that the consignments of goods transported through M/s.OM Transport Corporation from Tirupur office to Complainant’s Jaipur Branch Office, on various dates.

        The dispute arose, when the total loss of the consignments occurred due to the fire accident at the transporter’s godown between 31.12.2007 night and 01.01.2008 and the claim made by the Complainant in respect of four consignment worth about Rs.10,21,465/- was repudiated by the Opposite Party on 13.03.2008 after conducting a survey, on the ground that the consignment had delivered to the final destination point of the Complainant.

        The Counsel for Complainant contended that the consignment transported to their Jaipur Branch office reached their transporter godown at Jaipur and the fire accident which took place at the transporter godown is covered under Marine Cargo Policy issued by the Opposite Party and the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause (All risks), Condition No.5 duration clause would apply to the subject Policy as found in Ex.A-3 which reads as follows:

This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the warehouse and / or the Store at the place named in the policy for the commencement of transit and continuous during the ordinary course of transit including customary transhipment if any

1. Until delivery to the final destination named in the Policy.
2. In respect of transits by Rail only or Rail and Road until the expiry of 7 days after arrival of the railway wagon at the final destination railway station or
3. In respect of transits by Road only until the expiry of 7 days after the arrival of the vehicle at the destination town whichever shall first occur.

And the Counsel for Complainant argued relying on condition No.5(iii), that the consignment had not reached the destination point, i.e, to their branch office and the accident was took place at the transporter godown which is to be taken as in transit and hence the Complainant is entitled for the claim to be settled until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the vehicle, as the consignment of the Complainant had reached only the destination town and not reached the final destination at their Jaipur office, further contended that by letter dated 18.05.2007 their branches destination were provided and hence the transporter godown is not their destination place. Hence the repudiation of claim is made negligently that amounts to deficiency of service.

            The Counsel for the Opposite Party contended that condition No.5(i) of Inland Transit Clause apply to the instant case, as the Policy contains the destination point of the Complainant’s branch address as Jaipur, further from the survey it was found that the Complainant branch office is a small office and the Complainant stock/store their consignment at Jaipur only at the godown of their transporter, namely OM Transporter.  Further contended that on a survey it was also found that the consignments sent  from Tirupur to Jaipur, were stored in the transporter godown bearing lorry Receipt dated 01.12.2007 to 24.12.2007, about 10 consignments and out of which for only 4 consignments the Complainant had claimed for Insurance, would show that the Complainant store their consignment at transporter godown which is their final destination at Jaipur and sell the same to their customers from the transporter godown, which is also found during the time of survey, from the survey report filed by the Complainant as Ex.A-15. As the consignment reached the destination place of the Complainant at Jaipur, and further contended that the place of destination given by letter shall not contend any legal sanctity and only the place of destination mentioned in that Policy of transit would legally valid. The claim of the Complainant was legally repudiated and they had not committed any negligence resulting to deficiency of service.

The Opposite Party had relied upon Judgement reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 401, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd & Another is State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein in paragraph No.16, it is observed that,

Para:16: The provisions of an insurance contract must be imparted a reasonable business like meaning bearing in mind the intention conveyed by the words used in the policy document. Insurance policies should be construed according to the principles of construction generally applicable to commercial and consumer contracts. The court must interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties and not embark upon making a new contract for the parties. A reasonable construction must therefore be given to each clause in order to give effect to the plain and obvious intention of the parties as ascertainable from the whole instrument. The liability of the insurer cannot extend to more than what is covered by the insurance policy. In order to determine whether the claim falls within the limits specified by the policy, it is necessary to define exactly what the policy covered and to identify the occurrence of a stated event or the accident prior to the expiry of the policy. Hence, while considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to preface our analysis with the provisions of the policy.

And further in paragraph No.29, it is observed that,

“Para:29: In context of the policy, the words “in transit” do not require transportation of the consignment in a single trip from the commencement to the final destination but includes those interruptions in motion that are incidental to or in furtherance of the conveyance or transportation of the consignment. The words of the policy ought to be constructed so as to conform to the usual and ordinary method of pursuing the venture or operation. The question of what does and does not constitute a deviation in furtherance of the conveyance of the goods is a question of fact that must be determined by both the intent of the policy and the actions of the parties. An action that is wholly unrelated to the usual or ordinary method or pursuing the transportation of goods would prevent the goods from being covered under the definition of the expression “in transit” under the policy. Words used in the policy must be construed in their commercial setting having regard to the purpose of the policy. 

The Opposite Party had also relied upon judgement reported in 2000 SCC Online HP.25, by Himachal Pradesh High Court passed on 04.12.2000 in Himachal Pradesh High Court  Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein it is observed in paragraph No.22, as follows,

“Para:22: It was contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff Corporation that the risk covered under the policy extended till seven days after the consignment of sugar were received at Chandigarh and since the fire broke out and stock of sugar was defendant was liable. I do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Corporation. The insurance policy in the present case had ceased to remain operative the moment the consignments of sugar were received by the agent of the plaintiff Corporation at Chandigarh and kept stored in the godown after having unloaded the same from the vehicles. The period of seven days prescribed under clause 5, quoted above, would not apply to the stock received and kept in the godown. Such period has been prescribed only for the purpose of enabling the consignee to unload the same for being kept in the warehouse and / or the godown. The seven days period covers the risk only so long as the consignments has not been unloaded after it has reached its destination. Sub-clause (1) of clause 5 specifically stipulates that the policy would remain operative ill the goods are delivered to the final warehouse at the destination. In the present case, the destination of the consignments of sugar vide Exhs. PW 3/1 to PW 3/12 was Chandigarh and such consignments were delivered at the warehouse of the plaintiff Corporation through its agent. Therefore, the stock of sugar destroyed in fire cannot be said to have been destroyed while in transit and as such the defendant is not liable. The three issues are decided in favour of the defendant, severally applies to this case.

 The main point to be considered by this Commission is whether  condition No.5 (i) or 5 (iii) of Inland Transit clause applies which governs the Marine Cargo Open Policy, Ex.A.2.

On careful reading of the Complaint, Written Version and Exhibits marked on the either side and on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the consignment reached the transporter godown at Jaipur in a sound condition as admitted in the complaint and further as per Ex.A-15 being the Opposite Party survery report filed by the Complainant, wherein the consignments of the Complainant, were stored regularly at the transporter godown and sales been carried out by the Complainant from the transporter godown, hence this Commission holds that condition 5(i) of the Inland transit clause-A (All risks) apply to the instant case and the repudiation of claim made by the Opposite Party is as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and legally sustainable, and the Judgements relied by the Opposite Party squarely applies to the instant case. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed any negligence in repudiating the claim and also had not committed any deficiency of service.  Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-     

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint an for any other relief/s.

In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  15^th day of July 2022.  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                        T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                  B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                      MEMBER I                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1	18.05.2007	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A2	18.05.2007	Marine Cargo Open Policy issued by Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A3		Terms of Inland Transit (Rail or Road) Clause-A(All Roisks)
Ex.A4	21.05.2007	Receipt issued by Opposite Party bearing receipt voucher No.0700067470 for Complainant’s cheque for Rs28,090/- towards premium.
Ex.A5	19.12.2007	Stock transfer challan No.3594/07 raised by Complainant on its Jaipur Branch, for hosiery goods valued Rs.33,263/-
Ex.A6	20.12.2007	Lorry receipt No.52999 issued by OM Transport Corporation to Complainant
Ex.A7	19.12.2007	Stock transfer challan No.3595/7 raised by Complainant on its Jaipur branch, for hosiery goods valued Rs.6,85,476/-
Ex.A8	20.12.2007	Lorry receipt No,53000 issued by Om Transport Corporation to Complainant
Ex.A9	24.12.2007	Stock transfer challan No.3649/07 raised by Complainant on its Jaipur branch, for hosiery goods valued Rs.64,186/-
Ex.A10	24.12.2007	Lorry receipt No.53098 issued by Om Transport Corporation to Complainant
Ex.A11	24.12.2007	Stock transfer challan No.3650/07 raised by Complainant on its Jaipur branch, for hosiery goods valued Rs.1,45,680/-
Ex.A12	24.12.2007	Lorry receipt No.53099 issued by Om Transport Corporation to Complainant
Ex.A13	17.12.2007 to 29.12.2007	Declaration made by the Complainant under the insurance policy, for invoice No.3562 dt.17.12.2007 to invoice No.3709 dt 29.12.2007
Ex.A14	02.01.2008 and 07.03.2008	e-mail messages from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A15	12.03.2008	Marine survey Report in regard to destruction of complainnat’s goods in a fire accident
Ex.A16	13.03.2008	Letter of repudiation sent by Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A17	18.03.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A18	16.04.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A19	08.05.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A20	09.05.2008	Postal receipt for registered post of letter sent to Opposite Party
Ex.A21	14.05.2008	Complainant’s letter addressed to Om Transport Corporation, lodging claim
Ex.A22	20.05.2008	Letter from m Transport Corporation to Complainant, enclosing first information report and report of fire officer at fire station, Jaipur (English translations done for such reports also annexed)
Ex.A23	12.09.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A24	24.09.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A25	17.10.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A26	03.11.2008	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A27	05.01.2009	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A28	05.01.2009	Postal receipt for registered post of letter sent to Opposite Party
Ex.A29	23.01.2009	Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A30	20.02.2009	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A31	20.02.2009	Postal receipt for registered post of letter sent to Opposite Party
Ex.A32	18.03.2009	Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A33	16.06.2009	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A34	10.10.2010	Death certificate issued by Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata, for Smt.Suchorita mukherjee.
Ex.A35	10.10.2010	Death certificate issued by Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata, for Smt.Suchorita mukherjee
Ex.A36	13.10.2010	Extract of board resolution of Complainant company

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

12.03.2008

Survey Report

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                          T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                             B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                          MEMBER I                                                                 PRESIDENT