Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/97/2010

Through Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Through Partner Mukesh S/o Surajmal Caste Jain Age 32 Yrs. M/s Swastik Floor Mills - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Arora

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 97 /2010

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Barmer (Raj.)

Vs.

M/s. Swastik Flour Mills, G-1, 251,252 RIICO Industrial Area, Barmer (Raj.) through Partner Mukesh

 

Date of Order 10.8.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Sanjeev Arora counsel for the appellant

Mr.Inderjeet Chaudhary counsel for the respondent

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Barmer dated 17.11.2009 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant is engaged in grain business at Barmer and took a Marine Policy to the extent of Rs. 3 crore for consignments of various grains consigned by it throughout India on 6.4.2007. The complainant submits that it had dispatched 112 bags of flour valuing Rs.1,19,974.40 to M/s.L.P.Trading Co. Deesa vide bill no. 82 and 112 bags of Maida costing Rs.1,21,106.64 to M/s. Sai Kripa Traders, Ahmedabad through Chandra Moleshwar Cargo Moovers Transport Co. vide G.R. No. 23 & 22 respectively. The complainant further submits that due to excessive rains in the way these bags were got damaged and they had appointed Mr.A.Dave & Co., Ahmedabad to assess the loss who assessed the loss of the damaged bags at Rs. 76,571/-. The complainant approached the Insurance Company for re-imbursement of this amount which was declined by the company. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned DCF which allowed the complaint.

 

The Insurance Company submitted before the learned

 

3

 

DCF that the complainant had not completed the necessary formalities or forwarding any copy of GR, authority letter of the consignee, damage certificate, reply of carrier etc. The learned DCF however, did not consider these objections.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these goods were sent on 26.7.2007 and on 31.7.2007 the complainant appointed the surveyor at its own and submitted the report of the surveyor alongwith claim on 7.11.2007 to the company. He further submits that under the conditions of the Marine Policy a formal declaration of consignment sent outside the Barmer was to be filed by the company but no declaration of this consignment was filed with the company. He further argues that there is no notice to the carrier for this loss as it was the duty of the carrier to take reasonable care of the goods sent in the rainy season by covering them with water proof sheets etc.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that half of the consignment was to be offloaded at Deesa and remaining consignment was to be offloaded at Ahmedabad and when it reached at Ahmedabad, the goods were found damaged and the surveyor was called to assess the loss. The

 

4

 

company was informed on telephone, therefore, there is no delay in intimating the company.

 

We have heard the respective counsels and have considered the arguments.

 

It is mandatory under the conditions of the policy to declare the consignments which were sent outside Barmer and there is no explanation on the part of the complainant as to why he did not file any declaration. The explanation that no declaration form was supplied by the company cannot be accepted. Secondly it cannot be believed that the company was informed of the incident immediately on telephone. No details have been given to whom this intimation was given. It is also not proved that the surveyor M/s. A.Dave & Co. was appointed by the company or the company had requested the complainant to contact M/s. A.Dave & Co. for evaluating the loss. The formal intimation of the loss was received by the company on 7.11.2007 alongwith the report of the surveyor.

 

Despite notices to the complainant, the complainant failed to submit the notice given to the carrier or its reply under the Carriers Act.

5

 

 

In view of this we wish to allow this appeal and the impugned judgment of the learned DCF is quashed and set aside.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm