In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 255 / 2006.
1) Hindustan Produce Company,
7, Clyde Road, Hastings, Flat no. 6, Kolkata-700022. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The People's Insurance Company of China,
No. 167, Xiang Ya Raod, Changsha, Hunan,
China, Post Code-410008.
2) Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Ltd.,
OM TOWER, Suite No. 806 (8th Floor),
32, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,MEMBER
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,MEMBER
Order No. 4 7 Dated 2 6 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Hindustan Produce Company and against the o.ps. The People’s Insurance Company of China and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a partnership firm and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Forum of import. O.p. no.1 is a foreign insurance company carrying on their business insurance filed and o.p. no.2 is a local agent as appointed by o.p. no.1 for settling the claim in India and complainant in course of the business placed order to o.p. no.1 for settling of 118 bags containing ferro phosphorus weighting 129.8 mt and o.p. no.1 sent the consignment in the name of complainant in terms of order placed by complainant and report dispatching the said consignment consigner purchased a policy vide policy no.PEXP 200143018801003524 dt.24.9.01 and the said goods were supposed to be landed at Haldia Port and the said goods arrived at Haldia on 17.10.01 and container landed on 18.10.01 and the said goods were released by the port for delivery on 3.11.01 and the goods finally arrived at destination on 4.11.01. Further case of the complainant is that complainant instructed Mr. Arijit Banerjee, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for making survey and the said surveyor conducted survey at Haldia Port and also the consignee warehouse at Sick Lane, Khidirpur, Kolkata and survey report reflects shortage of 28,888 kgs. Complainant submitted claim together with relevant documents and claim bill and at it o.p. no.1 issued a letter on 9.4.03 asking for providing damage certificate so issued b y the carriers or port authorities and photos taken at the time of survey. Complainant made reply of the said letter on 19.4.03. O.p. no.1 thereafter on 4.2.04 issued a letter stating that bill of landing shows that cargo was “Shipper’s load and count and seal” and such damage were out of insurance cover and as such, insurance company o.p. no.1repudiated the claim. Thereafter complainant made requests time and again without any fruitful result. Hence the instant case filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 did not contest the case by filing w/v. O.p. no.2 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. O.p. no.2, in para 9 of w/v, admitted that o.p. no.2 acts as surveyor and claim settling agent of various overseas insurance company. But o.p. no.1 did not carry out the survey in the instant matter and the complainant lodged the claim with o.p’s Kolkata office. Also as per o.p. no.2 they have office in Kolkata and that Kolkata office is unable to admit the fact stated by complainant in their petition. To make it clear o.p. no.2 shoulder the liability of the instant episode with o.p. no.1. But fact remains that o.p. no.2 is an agent of o.p. no.1 for settling insurance claim in India. So, the relation between o.p. nos.1 and 2 is akeen to master and servant and the being agent of o.p. no.1, o.p. no.2 cannot shirk off its responsibility in the matter of making payment of insurance claim and we are of the view that both o.ps. had deficiency being service provider within the scope and purview of C.P. Act to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
The petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. no.1 with cost. Both o.ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,99,623/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred twenty three) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. on 4.2.04 till the date of realization of the entire sum and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-____ ______Sd-______ _______Sd-_______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
