Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Y. Krishan & B.S. Yadav, Member
VENUS TRADERS—Complainant
versus
SOUTH ASSAM CARRIES (P) LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
First Appeal No. 356 of 1992—Decided on 3.2.1994
For the Complainant :Mr. Atul Sharma & Mrs. Purnima Bhat Kak, Advocates.
For the Opp. Parties No. 1 : Nemo.
For the Opp. Parties No. 2 :Mr. J.R. Midha, Advocate.
The liability of an insurance company under an 'all risks' open policy is limited to the safe transport of goods from the point of origin to the point of destination and does not extend to the rebooking of goods.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE POLICY - SECTION 64-A OF THE INSURANCE ACT, 1938 - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE LIABILITY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE LOSS OF GOODS DURING REBOOKING.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Venus Traders, obtained an 'all risks' open policy from the respondent insurance company. The appellant entrusted a consignment of turmeric to the respondent carrier for transport from Erode to Calcutta. The consignment reached Calcutta safely, but the buyer did not take delivery of the goods. The appellant asked the carrier to rebook the consignment to Erode, but the carrier failed to do so. The appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming the value of the consignment and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the carrier was guilty of deficiency and negligence in the rendering of service and was bound to make good the loss. However, the State Commission dismissed the complaint against the insurance company, holding that the insurance was only for the safe transport of goods from Erode to Calcutta and that the liability of the insurance company came to an end when the goods reached Calcutta safely.
Issues: 1. Whether the carrier was liable for the loss of the goods during rebooking? 2. Whether the insurance company was liable for the loss of the goods during rebooking?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The carrier was liable for the loss of the goods during rebooking because it failed to rebook the consignment as per the instructions of the appellant. 2. The insurance company was not liable for the loss of the goods during rebooking because the insurance policy only covered the safe transport of goods from Erode to Calcutta and the liability of the insurance company came to an end when the goods reached Calcutta safely.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the insurance company.
Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member — This is an appeal against the order dated 26th June, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 20 of 1992. The said complaint was filed by the present appellant, Venus Traders against South Assam Carriers (P) Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1 and now Respondent No. 1 and National Insurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Patty No. 2 and now Respondent No. 2). By the impugned order the State Commission awarded Rs. 83,780/- with interest thereon (g) 18% with effect from 15th April, 1989 till payment against Respondent No. 1 (thereinafter referred to as Carriers). The facts as appear from the record are that the Complainant-Appellant has obtained a Open Policy covering ‘all risks’ from the said Insurance Company. The Complainant-Appellant, entrusted at Erode one consignment of 135 bags of turmeric to the Carriers wide letter’s lorry receipt No. 9990 dated 15th April, 1989 for transport to and delivery at Calcutta. The consignee named in the lorry receipt was Canara Bank, Calcutta. As required under the policy a due declaration about that consignment was sent to the Insurance Company named above. The lorry receipt and the connected documents were forwarded to Canara Bank, Calcutta. The ultimate buyer was M/s. Madhup Trading Company, Calcutta. It was to make payment of the value of the goods to the Bank, get endorsement on the lorry receipt in its favour and take delivery of the goods. It appears that the buyer did not make payment to the Bank and thus did not take delivery of the goods. The goods remained lying in the warehouse of the Carriers at Calcutta. The Canara Bank instructed the Carriers to rebook the consignment to Erode. The Complainant-Appellant also asked the Carriers to rebook the consignment to Erode. The Carriers were also told that rebooking and handling charges would be paid. Thereafter, there was some correspondence between the Bank, Carriers and the consignor about the consignment. The Carriers informed the Complainant that they have rebooked the goods to their branch office at Erode. However, when the consignor contacted the Erode Office of the Carriers, the goods were not available. According to the Complainant the goods were never rebooked. Thereupon the consignor, i.e., the appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 83,780/- as the price of the consignment with interest thereon at 24%.
2. The first respondent, i.e., the Carriers in their counter took objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission but we are not concerned with it now. On merits, it was pleaded that the goods had reached the destination in time but the buyer did not retire the documents from the bank and failed to take delivery of the goods and thus the goods are still lying in their premises at Calcutta. It was admitted that the complainant through its Bank wanted them to rebook the consignments to Erode but they called upon the bank to indemnify them for freight charges, demurrage charges and loading and unloading charges and as there was no response the goods could not be rebooked. According to the Carriers there was no deficiency or negligence in the rendering of service on their part.
3. The second Opposite Party, i.e., the Insurance Company took the plea that the goods had reached Calcutta safely and therefore, their liability as insurer of the consignment came to an end.
4. The State Commission referred to the correspondence between the parties and held that the goods have not reached back Erode till now and it is not known what is the fate of the goods and in such circumstances, the Carrier was guilty of deficiency and negligence in the rendering of service and was bound to make goods the loss. About the Insurance Company it was held that the insurance was only for the safe transport of goods from Erode to Calcutta and since the goods had reached Calcutta safely and as there was no policy of insurance for the re bo
