Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/396/2006

M/s.Sembcorp Logistics India P Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Ramani

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing  : 12.07.2006

Date of Order : 11.06.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                               : MEMBER-I

 

CC. NO.396/2006

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

 

M/s. Toll (India) Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director

Mr.Juzar Mustan,                                           

No.9A, Puzhal-Ambattur Road,

Puzhal,

Chennai - 600 066.                                              .. Complainant.

 

..Versus..

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Luz Divisional Office: 012500,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

“Temple Square Complex”

North Mada Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.                                               .. Opposite party. 

 

 

Counsel for complainant          :  Mr. R. Ramani   

Counsel for opposite party         :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,450/- towards loss occurred as per the claim with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay cost of the complaint.  

1.     The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant submits that he is doing and carrying on business as Logistics service provider for transportation of goods from one place to other.   Further the complainant states that in order to cover any loss or damage if any occurred during the course of business of transportation, the complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for “transit risks” on “All risks”  basis policy; under which the maximum limit of liability of the opposite party for anyone accident damages to the tune  of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- for one year.  The opposite party charged a premium of Rs.14,40,200/- and issued policy bearing No.012500/46/03/93 on 30.10.2003 for the period from 30.10.2003 to 29.10.2004.   Further the complainant states that during the course of his business on 03.09.2004, when the goods belonging to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. from Nagpur to Indore was transported in vehicle bearing Registration No.HR 38 F 5428 met with an accident on 05.09.2004 resulting shortage and damage to the tune of Rs.1,76,606.52/-.   The accident was duly reported to Multai Police station by the driver.  The loss also duly reported to opposite party and due survey was held on 07.09.2004. The Surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.1,18,391.52.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,058/- towards Surveyor fee.     Even after due submission of claim form with all documents on 20.10.2004 and 30.08.2005, the opposite party delayed in settling the claim though the complainant furnished all the relevant information and documents.   But the opposite party has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.    The conduct of the opposite party in delaying the settlement is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party submits that the complainant is not a Consumer under section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The contract of insurance is availed for commercial purpose.  In view of the Consumer Protection Act by virtue of amendment dated:15.03.2003, the complaint is not maintainable.    The cover is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the policy. Although the policy is issued covering all risk, it is required that the complainant should observe certain essential terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy.    The opposite party submits that while scrutiny of the Survey Report, it was found that “the damaged goods were found in Vehicle No.MH14 F 4188 and the vehicle was found to be different from what has been claimed in the GC Note”.  Hence, the opposite party could not admit or settle the claim.  Therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents marked and filed on the side of the  opposite party.

4.     The point for consideration is :-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,26,450/- being the loss of goods with 12% interest and cost as prayed for ?

5.     ON POINT:

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is doing and carrying on business as Logistics service provider for transportation of goods from one place to other.   Further the contention of the complainant is that in order to cover any loss or damage if any occurred during the course of business of transportation the complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for ‘transit risks’ on “All risks”  basis as per Ex.A1 policy; damages to the tune  of Rs.15,00,000/- for any one accident and Rs.50,00,000/- for one year.  The opposite party charged a premium of Rs.14,40,200/- and issued policy bearing No.012500/46/03/93 on 30.10.2003 for the period from 30.10.2003 to midnight of 29.10.2004.   Further the complainant contended that during the course of his business on 03.09.2004, when the goods belong to  M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was transported from Nagpur to Indore in a vehicle bearing Registration No.HR 38 F 5428 met with an accident resulting damages to the goods and shortage due to theft to the tune of Rs.1,76,606.52/- caused.   The said accident was duly reported to Multai Police Station by the driver as per Ex.A4.  The loss also duly reported to insurance company and due survey was held on 07.09.2004.   The Surveyor inspected the consignment and assessed the loss for Rs.1,18,391.52.  Ex.A13 is the Surveyor Report and Surveyor fee paid for a sum of Rs.8,058/-   

6.     As per the Surveyor Report, it  reads as follows:

Cause of loss :     “Accident of the vehicle during transit resulted in to the damages to consignment”. 

proves that huge damage caused to consignment.   Further the contention of the complainant is that evenafter due submission of claim form with all documents as per Ex.A2, the opposite party repudiated the claim without any valid reason except imaginary.   Hence the complainant is constrained to send letters Ex.A6, dated:06.09.2004, Ex.A8 dated:07.09.2004, with all details.  Since the opposite party has not come forward to settle the claim, the complainant is constrained to file his case.  The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party is bound and liable to indemnify the loss.  The Surveyor in his report had confirmed that the claim falls within the purview of this policy and is payable.  But the opposite party repudiated the claim without valid reason is unsustainable.  

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a Consumer under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The contract of insurance is availed for commercial purpose.  In view of the Consumer Protection Act by virtue of amendment dated:15.03.2003, the complaint is not maintainable.  But admittedly, the claim is bound on the service of the Insurance Company on the basis on the policy which is squarely applicable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Insurance cover is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the policy.  Although the policy is issued covering all risk, the complainant is required to observe certain essential terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy.    The opposite party further contended that while scrutiny of the Survey Report, it was found that “the damaged goods were found in Vehicle No.MH14 F 4188 and the vehicle was found to be different from what has been claimed in the GC Note”.  But no documents filed to prove the same proves deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,450/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 12.07.2006 to till the date of this order with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the points are answered accordingly.  

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party  is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,450/- (Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand four hundred and fifty only) being the Insurance Claim with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 12.07.2006 to till the date of this order to the complainant and to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

        Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th day of June 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER–I                                                                   PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	30.10.2003	Copy of policy
Ex.A2		Copy of Marine Claim Form
Ex.A3		Copy of Goods Consignment Note
Ex.A4	26.03.2004	Copy of certificate of fitness for the vehicle HR 38 F 5428
Ex.A5	05.09.2004	Copy of FIR
Ex.A6	06.09.2004	Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A7	07.09.2004	Copy of e-mails correspondences
Ex.A8	07.09.2004	Copy of letter from the complainant to opposite party
Ex.A9	08.09.2004	Copy of letter from the complainant to M/s. Midian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Ex.A10	11.09.2004	Copy of letter from M/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd to the complainant
Ex.A11	13.09.2004	Copy of letter from the complainant to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Ex.A12	22.09.2004	Copy of letter from K. M. Dastur Re-Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to the opposite party
Ex.A13	30.09.2004	Copy of the Survey Report
Ex.A14	04.10.2004	Copy of the Certificate from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. regarding assessment of loss
Ex.A15	20.10.2004	Copy of letter from K.M. Dastur Re-Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to the opposite party
Ex.A16	16.11.2004	Copy of e-mail correspondence
Ex.A17	29.01.2005	Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party enclosing proof of liability
Ex.A18	30.08.2005	Copy of letter from K.M. Dastur Re-Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER–I                                                                   PRESIDENT