SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 979

B. N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar, R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and others - Respondents
Ratan Chand Deep Chand and others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4306-4307 of 2003
Decided On: 13-06-2008

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23 - Marine Insurance Act, 193 - Clause 4.1 and Section 55 - Case of Complainants - Punjab National Bank by discounting Bills and endorsed the Bill - Lodged an oral claim with insurer - Seeking payment of the value of the consignments - Complainants are manufacturers of Rugs and Durries, carrying on business at, UP - Pursuance of orders placed Rugs Inc - Dispatched 17 consignments of rugs and durries of value of dollars dispatched – Held, Commission has referred to delay of nine months on part of Insurer in repudiating claim, after receiving the surveyors Report, and failure to furnish a copy of reports to complainants as deficiency in service - But is overlooked is complainants did not lodge any claim in writing did not produce any document showing the lodging of claim - It was on a mere oral intimation investigation by surveyor was set in motion - Contents of report had already been notified to the complainants by the surveyor in the telexes - Appeals are allowed

JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. - These appeals under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are filed against the common order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Commission for short) allowing in part OP No. 45 of 1997 and OP No. 49 of 1997. OP No.45 of 1997 was filed by M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partner Rajender Kumar Jain (respondents 1 and 2 in CA No.4306/2003). OP No.49 of 1997 was filed by M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its two partners (respondents 1 to 3 in CA No.4307/2003).

2. As the ranks of parties differ in the two appeals and as some parties were given up before the Commission, for convenience, we will also refer to the parties as follows : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as `Appellant or `Insurer; M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 & 2 in the first matter) and M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 to 3 in the second matter) as the `complainants; M/s Niranjan Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., (third Respondent in the first matter and fourth Respondent in the second matter) as `Niranjan Shipping; Punjab National Bank (fourth Respondent in the first matter and fifth Respondent in the second matter), and Bank of Baroda (sixth Respondent in the second matter) by their names; Atlanta Rugs Inc. as the `Buyer; and Overseas Container Lines Inc. (the Non-Vessel Owning Common Carrier acting as shipping Agent) as `NVOCC or `Overseas Container.

3. The case of the complainants, in brief, is as follows : Complainants are manufacturers of Rugs and Durries, carrying on business at Mirzapur, UP. In pursuance of orders placed by Atlanta Rugs Inc., Atlanta (for short the `buyer), M/s. Hira Lal Ramesh Chand dispatched 17 consignments of rugs and durries of the value of US $ 4,06,096 between 15.3.1995 and 29.6.1995; and M/s. Ratan Chand Deep Chand dispatched 38 consignments of the value of US $ 8,87,973 between 23.8.1994 and 4.7.1995. The consignments were entrusted to M/s Overseas Container Line Inc., a non- vessel owning shipping Agent represented by its Agent Niranjant Shipping Agency (P) Ltd., for transhipment from Mumbai to Atlanda (USA).

4. The Bill of Lading issued by Overseas Container in regard to each of the consignment showed the consignee as "Unto order" and party to be notified as "Atlanta Rugs Inc.". All the consignments were insured by the consignors, with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The original documents relating to the consignments were forwarded by Niranjan Shipping to the Bankers of complainant - Punjab National Bank. The complainants obtained credit facilities from Punjab National Bank by discounting the Bills and endorsed the Bill of Lading in favour of the said Bank. The said Bank, in turn, forwarded the original documents of title to its agent Sun Trust Bank (earlier known as Trust Company Bank) Atlanta, for collection, by endorsing the documents in their favour. The buyer (Atlanta Rugs Inc.) did not make payment and obtain release of the documents of title. They therefore made efforts to contact the buyer and the shipping Agent- Overseas Container. They were also not able to locate them. Nor were they able to find out the whereabouts of the consignments. Therefore they telephonically lodged an oral claim with the insurer on 2.2.1996 seeking payment of the value of the consignments. The insurer directed them to get in touch with their Surveyor-cum-Claim Settlement Agent at Atlanda -- M/s. Toplis and Hoarding Inc. They accordingly requested the said Surveyor to inquire and investigate the matter and issue necessary certificates. The surveyor submitted their reports to the Insurer, but failed to furnish copies thereof to the complainants. Their claim was not settled by the Insurer for more than a year in spite of reminders. Such failure amounted to deficiency in service and consequently the insurer became liable to pay the value of the consignments and the other amounts claimed, as compensation.

5. The com













































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top