Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor (Retd.), Member—Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing Appeal No. 161 of 2003 (R.B.T. No. 298 of 2008) and Appeal No. 180 of 2003 (R.B.T. No. 357 of 2008) received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against common order passed in New Suraj Transport Company Pvt. Limited v. National Insurance Company Limited.1

2. Briefly stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Complainant is a private limited company and is owner of fleet of trucks. It is carrying on the business of common carrier and had obtained an insurance policy from the OP for being indemnified against all its legal liabilities for actual physical loss and damage to the goods or merchandise arising out of operation of business of the Complainant as a transporter. Such policies of insurance had been obtained by the Complainant right from the year 1995 and in continuation, the Complainant obtained insurance cover note bearing No. 313430 for the period 22.6.96 to 21.6.97 for basic and wider cover. During the currency of this cover note, the Complainant suffered huge loss by way of legal liability towards different customers as a result of loss of goods in transit on its truck No. JKO 1035. The aforesaid truck was on its way to Srinagar and was loaded with various consignments. When this truck reached near Pahalgam road, Anantnag, some unidentified terrorists armed with weapons stopped the truck and also forced the driver of the truck to leave the driving seat. The terrorist then drove the truck to some unknown place with the driver blind folded. The consignments loaded in the truck were taken away by them at gun point. Out of 395 consignments/nags, 22 consignments/nags had already been unloaded at Lakhanpur and when the terrorists took over the control over the truck, there were only 373 consignments/nags. Leaving 215 nags lying in the truck, the terrorists took away the balance 158 nags, the approximate value of which was Rs. 38 lacs. This incident was duly reported to the Police Station Anantnag. F.I.R No. 352/96 was duly registered. During this investigation, the police recovered 121 nags but 37 nags continued to remain untraced. The value of the missing nags amounted to Rs. 5,00,610/- but after negotiation with the consignors, these were settled for a total amount of Rs. 3,80,763/-, the details of which are given as under:-

3. Due information of the claims settled by the Complainant with its customers was given to the OP by the Complainant and the Complainant’s claim qua the OP was lodged with the OP along with relevant documents submitted in original. OP deputed its surveyor/investigator and the investigation/survey report of Sh. R.S. Ahluwalia of Ludhiana had long been submitted to the OP. But the OP failed to settle the claim and instead issued letter dated 28.8.2001 pointing out that all documents to establish extent of loss suffered have not been furnished to the OP and it also advised the Complainant to furnish the same along with substantiating records to prove the claimed loss of Rs. 3,80,763/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 3,87,763/- in the impugned order). As per the Complainant, the stand taken by the OP is not at all tenable as all documents i.e. original G.R., Invoice, Claim Letter, Legal Notice, Certificate of Non Insurance, Original Receipt of Payment as well as copies of Bank Account Statement had been duly submitted to the OP while lodging the claim and the same were duly received by OP under its seal from the Complainant. This complaint has, therefore, been lodged to direct the OPs to settle the claim to the tune of Rs. 3,80,763/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and also compensate the Complainant for mental agony and harassment along with cost of litigation.

4. The OP has raised certain preliminary objections in response to the complaint stating that the complaint has not been filed by a duly authorized person and moreover, the Complainant is estoppe