| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.26 of 31.1.2017 Decided on: 25.8.2020 M/s Nexgen Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Behind Milk Food, Bahadurgarh, District Patiala, through its authorized representative Mr.Parmod Dutt. …………...Complainant Versus - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, through its Senior Divisional Manager.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai, through its C.M.D.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY For the complainant: Sh.K.S.Sidhu,Advocate For OPs: Sh.S.K.Garg,Advocate ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by M/s Nexgen Laminators Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative Mr.Parmod Dutt(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that its company took “Marine Cargo Open Insurance policy” for the period from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016 vide cover note No.011047, for covering the transit loss/risk of all types of textile packing material like paper film, Bopp films, polyester film, adhesive and laminators goods and goods of similar trade manufactured by the factory. The complainant paid Rs.43890/- as premium for the sum insured of Rs.25 crores. At the time of insurance, the representative of the OPs inspected the factory physically and issued cover note only.The coverage of transportation of goods was by road/rail, anywhere in India.
- It is stated that the complainant vide declaration form No.551378 and 551379 dated 4.8.2015, sent consignment of paper foil laminate sokh 136 G Caramello foil Gold Colour, Paper Foil Laminate CDM Silk Bubly 120-G Reel Feed Aluminum foil etc. in proper packing with proper care and diligence for Rs.1,89658/- to M/s Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.,Pune. The goods were transported by rail/road from Patiala to Pune and landed at final destination on 12.8.2015 in damaged condition as a result of which the consignee refused to take the delivery from transporter.
The complainant informed the matter to Regional office of OPs and they deputed Mr.Sanjay Sawala to survey the loss.The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,86,738 excluding survey fee of Rs.7420/-, which is to be reimbursed to the complainant. So total claim was of Rs.1,94,158/-only. The complainant completed all formalities as desired by surveyor and OPs.All original papers are in custody of OPs. The complainant was shocked on receipt of letter dated 27.7.2016 whereby the OPs refused to pay the claim on technical and flimsy grounds with the remarks that: “With reference to the above your claim, Mr.Sanjay Sawala, Surveyor and Loss Assessor has concluded his report by mentioning that nature of packing appear to be insufficient for such heavy reel and also that the transporter had not taken due care in causing/providing shelter to the consignment. The consignment has been shifted to so may places i.e. from the work place to railway station, Pune railway station to consignee’s place, consignee’s place to transporter’s representative etc.Therefore, the loss might have increased due to multiple shifting and improper storage”. Thereafter the complainant took up the matter with transporter and OPs but they refused to listen to the complainant.That by noting making the payment of genuine claim, OPs have committed deficiency in service which caused lot of harassment and mental agony to the complainant - On this background of the facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay the claim of Rs.1,94,158/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the claim amount; to pay Rs.55000/- for causing harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.33000/-as costs of litigation.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written reply by raising preliminary objections that the papers were found damaged/pressed/cut/deshaped/wet (a little bit) during the course of loading/unloading/handling during transit period. The nature of packing was not sufficient for such heavy reels/paper and further the transporter had not taken due care in covering/providing shelter to the consignment. As such the consignment was not proper packed with proper care and diligence. As such in view of the above said reason the OPs are unable to entertain the claim. The intimation was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 27.7.2016 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, it is submitted that the OPs have not entertain the claim of the complainant as per rules, law and report of Sh.Sanjay Sawala. It is further submitted that on receipt of letter dated 14.8.2015 from the complainant, the OPs deputes Sh.Sanjay Sawala, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss and to investigate the matter.He submitted his report dated 19.8.2015 having assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,86,738/-.He also assessed the value of salvage as Rs.2519/-. After reiterating the facts as taken in the preliminary objections, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 authority letter, Ex.C2 insurance cover note, Ex.C3 invoice No.0759, Ex.C4 invoice No.0760,Ex. C5 survey fee bill, Ex.C6 receipt, Ex.C7 no claim letter and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms.Gurveen Kaur, Sr.Divn Manager of OP Ex.OPA, copy of letter dated 21.7.2016, Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP2, copy of intimation, Ex.OP3, survey report, Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
- The OPs filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the firm has taken Marine Cargo Open Insurance Policy for covering the transit loss/risk of all types of textile packing material like paper film, bopp films, polyester film, adhesive and laminators goods and goods of similar trade manufactured by the factory for the period from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016 and paid Rs.43890/- as premium for the sum insured of Rs.25 crores.The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant sent a consignment of paper foil laminate sokh 136 G Caramello foil gold colour paper foil laminate CDM silk bubbly 120-G reel feed aluminum foil etc. in proper packing with proper care and diligence for Rs.1,89,659/- to M/s Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. Pune.The goods were transported by rail/road from Patiala to Pune and landed at destination on 12.8.2015 in damaged condition.The ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that the matter was reported to the OPs who deputed Mr.Sanjay Sawala to survey the loss.The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that the OPs wrongly refused to pay the claim on technical and flimsy grounds . The ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the citation United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. The Issewal Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., decided by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal No.65 of 1196 on 4.6.1996.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the packing was loose and the loss has caused due to the fault of the complainant.He has further argued that the complainant has not made the transport company as party to the complaint, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.He has further argued that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.
- We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and the law, relied upon by the complainant.
- Admittedly the complainant took Marine Cargo Open Insurance policy for the period from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016 vide cover note No.011047 and paid Rs.43890/- for the sum insured of Rs.25 crores, for covering the risk of all types of textile packing material like paper film, bopp films, polyester film, adhesive and laminators goods and goods of similar trade manufactured by the factory. He sent a consignment of paper foil laminate sokh 136 G Caramello foil gold colour paper foil laminate CDM silk bubbly 120-G reel feed aluminum foil etc. to M/s Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. Pune, which was landed at destination on 12.8.2015 in damaged condition.The complainant approached the OPs for the loss caused to him but the OPs wrongly refused to pay the claim on flimsy grounds.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on file resolution, Ex.C1, cover note,Ex.C2, invoices,Exs.C3&C4 and the bill of the surveyor,Ex.C5.
- On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.OPA Ms.Gurveen Kaur, Sr.Divisional Manager, of the OPs,wherein she has deposed that as per the report of surveyor goods were placed in ordinary cartons which were further tied up and placed in polythene bags and the papers were found damaged/pressed/cut/deshaped/wet (a little bit) during the course of loading/unloading/handling during transit.The nature of packing was not sufficient for such heavy reels/paper and further the transporter had not taken due care in covering /providing shelter to the consignment.
- The surveyor report is Ex.OP4 on the file.On page no.6 of the surveyor report, it is mentioned that, “transporter had not taken due care in covering/providing shelter to the consignment.The consignment has been shifted to so many places i.e. from the work place to railway station, Pune Railway station to consignee’s place, consignee’s place to transporter’s representative etc. Therefore, loss might have increased due to the multiple shifting and improper storage.”
This report is not believable when the complainant’s company has taken Marine Cargo Open Insurance Policy for Rs.25crores.The risk period was 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016.He also paid Rs.43890/- as premium.The copy of policy cover note is on the file as Ex.C2. - It has been mentioned in the citation United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another (supra) decided by the Hon’ble President, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal No.65 of 1196 on 4.6.1996 that “Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise technical or flimsy grounds to deny the claim”.
- No evidence has been lead by the OPs to prove that the complainant has not suffered any loss or the goods were not proper packed during transit.The goods were duly insured.The surveyor has wrongly tried to give flimsy ground to deny the claim of the complainant.There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not paying the genuine claim to the complainant.
- In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint partly with a direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.1,86,738/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.1.2017 till realization.The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as costs of the complaint. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:25.8.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
