- Tega Industries Ltd.
147, Block-G, New Alipore, Kolkata-53. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Manager – Claims – East, HDFC ERGO
General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Previously known as HDFC Chubb General
Insurance Co. Ltd., 10/2, Metro Towers,
1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 38 Dated 28-01-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant Tega Industries Ltd. had purchased a marine insurance open policy vide policy no.MOP 0000207000100 valid from 20.12.06 to 19.12.07 from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as o.p) previously known as HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 8.5.07 one truck being registration no.WB-11 A-6316 of the career / transporter namely Tata Calcutta Transport Company loaded with the goods owned by complainant company had been stolen from a place within the jurisdiction of Sankrail P.S. The incident was reported to the said P.S. and they started a police case vide Sankrail P.S. Case no.155 dt.8.5.07 u/s 379 of IPC. Later police submitted final report on 26.1.08. The said truck and lost goods could not be recovered by police till date. The monetary loss for the said lost goods was Rs.10,00,5525/-. Complainant initially tried to trace out the lost truck along with the goods with their own source and thereafter, they lodged their claim on 25.5.07 to o.p. through one insurance broker namely PNB Principal Insurance Advisory Co. Ltd. and subsequently submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim. After receiving the claim form o.p. appointed one investigator and one surveyor & loss assessor to investigate the matter. After waiting a prolonged period of time complainant sent different letters to o.p. to settle the claim. But every time o.p. raised a new point to delay the settlement of the claim. In the letters dt.9.2.08, 25.3.08 and 10.10.08 o.p. repeatedly asked the complainant to produce the driver and helper of the involved truck which is not owned by complainant. Complainant in their reply dt.12.3.08, 15.4.08 and 18.10.08 explained the matter to o.p. that they only hired the said transport company to carry their goods and they are unable to trace out two persons who were not in any way attached with the complainant company. Police has already investigated the case and could not trace out the lost truck and lost goods. Finding no other alternative complainant sent a legal notice on 22.12.08 to o.p. but o.p. did not reply. So there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of o.p. Hence the application praying for payment of entire value of the stolen goods to the tune of Rs.10,00,5525/- along with compensation and cost.
O.p. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v, o.p. denied all the material allegations interalia stated that the case is barred by limitation. O.p. insurance company is providing service in pursuance of the policy condition which is binding upon the parties. O.p. enquired regarding the delayed information but complainant failed to reply to the same. Independent surveyor was appointed by o.p. but the delay of almost one month in lodging the claim jeopardized the right of the insurer to trace and recover the materials. In their w/v, o.p. has also stated that complainant had to satisfy the insurance company with all papers and documents that there was theft and they had lodged its monetary claim against the transporter for entire consignment as per clause 8.2 in the policy. O.p. informed by their letter dt.10.10.08 that this letter would be treated as the final reminder and requested the complainant to produce the original accepted letter of monetary claim lodged with the transporter for which there was a delay of one month for lodging the claim. In that letter o.p. asked the complainant to furnish the required documents but complainant failed to comply the same. So there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of o.p. The letter dt.10.10.08 was sent as final reminder and as the complainant did not respond to the same the claim would be treated to be closed. So, the case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant took one Marine Open Cargo policy from o.p. It is also admitted fact that during validity period of the said policy on 8.5.07 some articles sent by vehicle no. WB 11A 6315 through career
Tata Calcutta Transport Co. was stolen. Accordingly, FIR was lodged and Sankrail P.S. gave their final report on 26.1.08. We have observed that FIR was lodged on the same date i.e. the date of incident (8.5.07) but the intimation about such loss was given to o.p. on 25.5.07. Though there is a delay of 17 days but the claim intimation letter sent by complainant was received by o.p. on 5.6.07. The said intimation letter bears the stamp and seal of o.p. along with date of receipt. As per terms and conditions of the policy (clause 8.1 of the Inland clause) the claim intimation has to be given at the earliest so that the loss as alleged to have been caused could have been investigated by the insurance company and chances of recovery could be enhanced and loss minimization could have been made. Hon’ble National Commission held in I (2014) CPJ 421 NC that in case where the theft of a vehicle occurred and the goods in the said vehicle covered under marine policy, the complainant is under an obligation that the information regarding the loss be intimated immediately. We have also observed that the dates of invoices and the consignment notes are different. Again we have observed that the nature of alleged stolen goods mentioned in FIR are of iron and steel whereas from consignment notes we have observed that the delivered goods were totally different which was mentioned in FIR. From the invoices it is clear that the goods were being sent through vehicle no.WB 03 B 3290 but in FIR the registration number of the lost vehicle was mentioned as WB 11A 6316. So, it is not clear whether the stolen vehicle is the vehicle in which the insured goods were sent on relevant date and by relevant invoices. Complainant has argued that the goods were initially sent to the transporter to their warehouse by vehicle no.WB 03B 3290 on different date and from there it was loaded to vehicle no.WB 11A 6316. Complainant informed the o.p. about the aforesaid fact much later. Moreover, no cogent proof like lorry receipt has been submitted. The change of vehicle for the purpose of transportation should be intimated to the insurance company before the goods were to set into transit. U/s 20 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 it is an obligation of the assured to disclose the necessary facts. In the final report it is clear that the police could not collect any evidence by virtue of which the occurrence of alleged theft have been proved. No witness or source gave any material information to police. In the absence of any material proof police has submitted the final report.
Apart from the above discussions, we find no document from where it is evident that complainant took necessary steps against the said career. Complainant has not made the said career as a party. We find no document that the complainant has claimed anything from the carrier. As per the policy wordings attached to the policy issued by o.p., the assured is under a duty to lodge monetary against the carrier for the occurrence of the loss and the same is provided under clause 8.2 of terms and conditions. In view of the above, we are in the view that complainant has failed to substantiate the case and as such, is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
