The complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had purchased 616 sq. ft. of granite blocks from the Hindustan Granite and Marbles, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.45,535/-. The said granite blocks were transported by the 3^rd respondent to the residence of the complainant at Viyyur, Thrissur Dt. The damage in the transportation and other risks in the transportation were covered by the 2^nd respondent as per the policy No.421400/1/48/N/OPL/334/2002 dated 19.10.02. On reaching the complainant’s residence 19 slabs included in the above were seen broken due to the transit hazards. Since the consignment is to cover the flooring of the new house, the complainant met shortages due to the cracks and breaking. This caused mental and monetary loss. The complainant informed the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent directed the complainant to prepare a survey report of the damage. Consequently the approved surveyor of the respondent inspected the damage and assessed the loss for Rs.7793.25. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.830/- to the surveyor as his charges. On 22.10.02 the petitioner had submitted a claim form with the 2^nd respondent company and claimed the damages as assessed by the approved surveyor. But the claim is not honoured. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter of respondents-1 and 2 is as follows. These respondents admit that they have issued the declaration under open policy (Inland transit) as per No. 421400/1/48/N/OPL/334/2002 dated 19.10.02. The complainant has submitted the claim form before the respondents company stating that some of the Granite Slabs are broken. These respondents had arranged a surveyor at the request of the complainant. The surveyor has reported that 4 slabs of 128 sq. ft are broken in transit hazards such as jerks and jolts. Hence the damage is caused due to the negligence of the carriers. Legally the carriers are solely responsible for the loss and damages. It is mandatory on the part of the consignor to issue notice of loss to the carrier, and obtain the damage certificate from the carrier. The damage certificate is not so far obtained or produced. In Marine Insurance after the settlement of the claim on the basis of subrogation letter and special power of attorney, the insurance company can recover from the carrier the amount paid by the insurance company. As per the Carriers Act they are bound to pay the amount, since the insured did not protect the right of recovery by preferring claim on the carriers and obtaining the damage certificate. Therefore damage certificate is highly necessary. The policy is issued imposing policy excess of Rs.5000/- each and every claim i.e. the insurance does not cover the first Rs.5000/-. Thus the claim falls within the excess. As per the invoice, the cost of 616 sq.ft.granite was for Rs.45,535.89 the cost of 128 sq.ft. of granite damaged was Rs.9462/-. The respondent had considered the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the admissible claim of Rs.7096-50, less the salvage value (as per the survey report) of Rs.2597-50 = Rs.4499/-. Therefore, no claim is payable. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The 3^rd respondent is called absent and declared exparte.

 

            4. The points to be considered:

(1)   Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount?

(2)   Other reliefs and costs.

 

            5. The evidence consists of Exts. R1 and R2 and Exts. X-1 to X-6.

 

            6. Points-1 and 2: The case of complainant is that he had purchased 616 sq.ft. of granite blocks from Bangalore. The 3^rd respondent transported the said granite blocks from Bangalore to the residence of the complainant at Viyyur, Thrissur District. The damage and other risks in the transportation was covered by the 2^nd respondent as per the policy No. 421400/1/48/N/OPL/334/2002. On reaching the complainant’s residence 19 slabs were seen broken due to the transit hazards. Due to the cracks and breaking, the entire planning was upset and caused mental as well as monetary loss. Later the complainant had informed the second respondent about the loss directly and the 2^nd respondent directed the complainant to prepare a survey report of the damage through their approved surveyor Mr. E.I. Sidharthan and the surveyor prepared a detailed report and as per the request the net loss was assessed as Rs.7793.25. According to the complainant he had also paid Rs.830/- as surveyor charge. On 22.10.02 the complainant had submitted claim form with the second respondent company and claimed the damages as assessed by the surveyor and also submitted the survey report and also other relevant records. But the claim is not settled by the respondent insurance company. The respondents-1 and 2 contended that the complainant has submitted the claim form before the respondents company stating that some of the Granite Slabs are broken. These respondents had arranged a surveyor at the request of the complainant.  The surveyor has reported that 4 slabs of 128 sq. ft are broken in transit hazards such as jerks, jolts and thereby he has assessed the net loss for Rs.7793/-. The damage caused to the complainant’s consignment was due to the negligence of the carriers.  Legally the carriers are solely responsible for the loss and damages. The main contention of the respondent company is that the policy is issued imposing policy excess of Rs.5000/- each and every loss in respect of which the insured is indemnified by the policy. Thus the claim falls within the excess. Hence no claim is payable. The Company also stated that the cost of 616 sq. ft. granite was for Rs.45,535.89 the cost of 128 sq. ft. of granite damaged was Rs.9462/-. The respondents-1 and 2 had considered the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the admissible claim of Rs.7096-50, less the salvage value (as per the survey report) of Rs.2597-50. So according to the respondent company the claim is below the excess and cannot be considered. According to the Company the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount by hitting the excess condition of the policy. After reducing the salvage value the respondent Company arrived the amount of Rs.4499/-. But this is not correct. Because the Ext. X-6 surveyor’s report shows that the net loss is Rs.7793.25. He had assessed the loss after deducting the salvage value of 25% and arrived at this amount of Rs.7793.25. The respondent company arrived at the conclusion of Rs.4499/- is by again deducting the salvage value. That is not correct. So the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.7793.25. Ext. R2 is the repudiation letter issued by the respondent insurance company. It was issued by the respondent company without considering the Ext. X-6 report. There is no objection raised by the respondent company and the report is prepared by their approved surveyor. After deducting the salvage value the loss will come at Rs.7793.25.

 

            7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the first and second respondents are directed to pay Rs.7794/- (Rupees seven thousand seven hundred and ninety four only) to the complainant as the loss assessed and Rs.830/- (Rupees eight hundred and thirty only) as the survey charges. The first and second respondents are further directed to pay the compensation and costs as prayed. Comply the order within one month.