Back
2007(5) Supreme 201
Supreme Court of India
(From National Commission)
A.K. Mathur & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
M/s Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2319 of 2004
Decided on : 16-07-2007
[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 131; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s List Law Reports 554; 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 487; 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 754; (1999) 3 SCC 465; (2004) 3 SCC 694; (1999) 6 SCC 451; JT 2007 (1) SC 191; (2005) 9 SCC 174; [1966] 3 S.C.R. 500; [1960] Vol.I Q.B. (Com. Cr.) 554 – Referred.
Insurance Laws – Compensation – As both the Surveyors were of the appellant company, it cannot deny the amount of compensation arrived at by these surveyors – This amount accepted by the National Commission cannot therefore be interfered with – However the interest made payable from the date of National Commission’s order rather than the date of survey report. (Para 18)
Facts of the case :
The claimant-respondent is engaged in import of sugar and other items and in connection with import of 12,000 metric tons of sugar from China to Calcutta the respondent had taken an insurance policy for which cover note dated 9.6.1994 and policy was valid from 23.9.1994 i.e. from the date of issue. The policy was further extended by endorsement dated 28.9.1994 for up-country destinations in India. It was alleged that after taking delivery of sugar, the bags could not be transported from the dock area because of Durga Puja celebrations and as a result of which all activities including transportation facilities virtually came to a stand still from 10.10.1994. Therefore, in all 82,237 bags of sugar were temporarily stored in T-sheds at Calcutta Port area enroute up-country destinations. On 21.10.1994 fire broke out in the godown and destroyed the entire stock of sugar bags. Hence, a First Information Report was lodged and the appellant- Insurance Company was also informed by the respondent. The appellant appointed M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. on 22.10.1994. On 24.10.1994 the Surveyors wrote to the respondent asking for the books of accounts and stock register and also took the spot inspection. The appellant appointed one N.V.P. Sharma Associates Pvt. Ltd. as another additional surveyor. Since the claim was not settled by the appellant- Insurance Company, the respondent filed the present complaint before the Commission on 21.3.1996. The appellant on 6.5.1996 repudiated the claim of the respondent. The Commission examined the relevant provisions and took the view that as per the Institute Cargo clause and extended coverage to the policy on payment of additional amount, the insurance cover of the goods would be till the delivery to the consignees at the destination named therein i.e. the insurance coverage was valid till the goods were delivered to the consignees’ warehouse or other final warehouse or the place of storage at the destination. Ultimately, the Commission decreed the claim of the respondent. Hence the present appeal.
Findings of the Court :
The goods were covered from Calcutta port till the same reach its destination.
JUDGMENT
A.K. MATHUR, J.—
1.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) whereby the Commission has allowed the claim of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,94,22,000/- and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date after two months of the survey report by the Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. i.e. from 1.3.1995 till its payment. Aggrieved against this order of the Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company.
2.Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant-respondent is engaged in import of sugar and other items and in connection with import of 12,000 metric tons of sugar from China to Calcutta the respondent had taken an insurance policy for which cover note dated 9.6.1994 and policy was valid from 23.9.1994 i.e. from the date of issue. The policy was further extended by endorsement dated 28.9.1994 for up-country destinations in India. It was alleged that after taking delivery of sugar, the bags could not be transported from the dock area because of Durga Puja celebrations and as a result of which all activities including transportation facilities virtually came to a stand still from 10.10.1994. Therefore, in all 82,237 bags of sugar were temporarily stored in T-sheds at Calcutta Port area en route up-country destinations. On 21.10.1994 fire broke out in the godown and destroyed the entire stock of sugar bags. Hence, a First Information Report was lodged and the appellant- Insurance Company was also informed by the respondent. The appellant appointed M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. on 22.10.1994. On 24.10.1994 the Surveyors wrote to the respondent asking for the books of accounts and stock register and also took the spot inspection. The appellant appointed one N.V.P. Sharma Associates Pvt. Ltd. as another additional surveyor. Since the claim was not settled by the appellant- Insurance Company, the respondent filed the present complaint before the Commission on 21.3.1996. The appellant on 6.5.1996 repudiated the claim of the respondent. The letter dated 6.5.1996 reads as under :
“ The unsold remaining bags of sugar were taken to three different private godown outside the port premises. The fire broke out on the 26th day after the cargo was stored. This storage was general storage other than the “in the ordinary course of transit”. The case falls under Clause 108, 102 & 2.1 of the Institute Cargo Clause (a) of the policy issued, as a consequence of which transit terminated upon storage, in the T-shed and before sale and disposal of the cargo. It was destroyed by the fire after the cover under the policy ceased. The risk would have been covered, if you had obtained a “Storage Risk Policy”. Such a policy would have covered a loss due to fire when the goods were stored. In the absence of such a policy, the loss which occurred due to fire to the stored goods, well after the voyage and transit terminated, cannot be claimed under the above. The claim, therefore, is not maintainable.”
The plea of the appellant-Insurance company for repudiating the present claim was that the goods were destroyed in general storage other than in the ordinary course of transit and it was also observed that what was covered was transit risk and not storage risk. Therefore, it was held that the claim was not maintainable. The Commission examined the relevant provisions and took the view that as per the Institute Cargo clause and extended coverage to the policy on payment of additional amount, the insurance cover of the goods would be till the delivery to the consignees at the destination named therein i.e. the insurance coverage was valid till the goods were delivered to the consignees’ warehouse or other final warehouse or the place of storage at the destination. Ultimately, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
