Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member; Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
M/s. MAHADEO COTTON MILLS LTD.—Complainant
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No. 151/90—Decided on 22.2.1992
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 r/ws 17(a)(i) - Complaint under· Deficiency in service - repudiation of Insurance Claim - Insurers have considered the matter in all its aspects· They took the decision to repudiate the claim in good faith after application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances - Rejection by the insurer of the claim cannot be said to constitute deficiency in service on the part of the insurers in relation to performance of their duties under the contract of insurance.
(Janta Machine Tools Case: Relied on).
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 r/ws 17(a)(i) - Complaint under - Claim for non-delivery loss against the carrier - Not - maintainable under the Act - Complainant may seek redressal in a civil court.
Result: Complaint dismissed. For claim of none delivery loss, the complainant may seek remedy in a civil court.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the insurers have considered the matter in all its aspects and they took the decision to repudiate the claim in good faith after application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances the rejection of the claim cannot be said to constitute deficiency in service on the part of insurers in relation of performance of their duties under the contract of insurance.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—M/s. Mahadeo Cotton Mills Ltd., Bhilwara through its Director Shri Rajkumar Mansinghka has filed this complaint under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) against (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Bhilwara (opposite party No. 1), (ii) Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhilwara (opposite party No. 2), (iii) Jai Bharat Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad (opposite party No. 3) and (iv) M/s. West Bengal Industrial Transport Complex Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta (opposite party No. 4). Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 shall hereinafter be referred to as “the insurers”. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 will hereinafter be referred to as “ the transporters.”
2. The complaint was filed on 10.8.90. The complainant has alleged that opposite party No. 3 has agreed to carry the goods of the complainant on behalf of opposite party No. 4 in a public carrier. The complainant has stated that the complainant consigned the goods for being carried to Calcutta at Bhilwara office of opposite party No. 3. It entrusted the goods to opposite party No. 3. It issued Lorry Receipts (LRs) on behalf of opposite party No. 4. It has been averred that the complainant company entrusted Lorry Receipts, invoices etc. alongwith hundies on the Bank of Rajasthan, Bhilwara. The Bank of Rajasthan Branch, Bhilwara after sale of hundies sent the entire documents to its Calcutta branch and gave intimation to the parties. The complaint is said to have booked the goods mentioned as under :
S.No. Bill No. L.R. No. Date Amount of bill
1. 60 2383 25.7.88 6136.00
2. 67 44978 27.7.88 5305.00
3. 68 44979 27.7.88 5920.00
4. 88 45219 5.8.88 5309.00
5. 92 45292 9.8.88 6749.00
6. 99 45299 9.8.88 5305.00
7. 125 2998 2.9.88 5650.00
8. 126 2999 2.9.88 5650.00
9. 127 3000 2.9.88 5305.00
10. 128 5551 2.9.88 5305.00
11. 134 41593 5.9.88 9166.00
12. 148 46526 8.9.88 6497.00
13. 162 46355 12.9.88 5955.00
14. 54 2377 25.7.88 5891.00
15. 55 2378 25.7.88 5891.00
16. 56 2379 25.7.88 5891.00
17. 161 46356 12.9.88 5955.00
18. 132 41595 5.9.88 5950.00
19. 102 45718 18.8.88 5305.00
20. 117 46338 31.8.88 8342.00
Total amount : 1,21,477.00
3. The complainant has assigned the documents to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and so it was incumbent on the transporters to deliver the goods consigned after payment to the Bank and obtain receipt thereof. The Lorry Receipts which were issued in the name were of Bank of Rajasthan. The complainant had obtained an insurance policy covering all risks from opposite party No. 1. It was an open insurance policy according to the rules of the insurance company. Before sending the goods, declaration forms after filing them were to be delivered. The complainant has alleged that all the goods consigned covered all risks. The complainant gave declaration of the goods consigned, when the goods were not delivered despite entrusting them to opposite party No. 3 even after three months and did not obtain the documents from the Bank. Opposite party No. 3. was contacted but no specific reply was given. A letter dated 15.12.88 was written mentioning the cost of the goods including interest as Rs. 1,29,587/- and submitted the claim to opposite parties No. 3 and 4 for Rs. 1,29,587/-. To the same effect a letter was written on 20.1.89 to the insurers (opposite party No. 4). No amount was paid. Letter was written on 13.3.89 for intimating the receipt of the goods of 20 Lorry Receipts. Subsequent letter dated 18.4.89 was also written. A registered letter dated 24.5.89 and telegram dated 8.6.89 were given but no intimation with regard to the consigned goods was given. Opposite party No. 3 informed vide letter dated 22.6.89 to the complainant that the goods sent by the complainant could not been delivered to the concerned parties as conveyed by the opposite party No. 4. Similar letter is said to have been written by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1 on 22.6.89. As soon as inform
