Back
2010(1) CPR 58 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. R. Piyarelall Import and
Export Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No. 175 of 2005 with First Appeal No. 176 of 2005
Decided on 19.11.2009
For the Appellant:Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Nayak and Mr. T.B. Majumdar, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a matter of insurance claim till the time, the claim preferred by the complainants were disposed off by the appellants, one way or the other, the cause of action would continue.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Limitation—Insurance claim— Incident of loss occurred in 1996—Consumer complaint was filed in 2000—Till filing of complaint OP had neither rejected the claim nor did accept it—Cause of action will arise from date of repudiation of claim—Complaint could not be said to be time barred. (Para 6)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Marina cargo open cover policy taken to cover shipment of pulses in bags—There was short delivery on 509 bags and 471 bags were in torn and burst condition and surveyor appointed by Insurance Company surveyed consignment—Claim resisted on plea that versal used for import was not on approved list of GIC which was violation of policy condition—While applying for insurance cover, names of ships were indicated—Insurance cover was issued—No material produced that versel in question was not approved by GIC—State Commission rightly dismissed the objection. (Para 7)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Resisted on plea that premium for insurance was not given and there was violation of Rule 58(ii) of Insurance Rules, 1939—After having issued policy in respect of given voyages under Marine policy, Insurance Co.-appellant had no locus to allege that policy was void for non-payment of premium. (Para 9)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
B.K. Taimni, Member—Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondents had filed two separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2. We go on to dispose off these appeals by a common order, as question of law involved in both these appeals is the same. We have taken the facts from first appeal No.175 of 2005.
3. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had obtained a ‘Marine Cargo Open Cover’ for Rs. 7,50,00,000 on 18.3.96 wherein the appellant agreed to grant insurance cover on the shipment of pulses in bags from Yangon and other ports to Kolkata, Bombay and Tuticorin from 18.3.96 to 17.3.97 against institute Cargo Clauses (All risks), ‘Institute war and strike, riot and civil commotion’ clauses. During course of its business, the respondent/complainant was receiving a shipment of Toor-whole dal in 3,850 bags from Yangon to Bombay per MV Silver Kris, for which ‘marine cargo, i.e., transit and duty insurance for Rs. 35,56,000 and Rs. 2,49,000 respectively was obtained. The risk was assumed by the appellant on 1.8.96 for which they issued ‘marine cargo and duty policy’ on 1.8.96, it was the case of the complainant that at the time of receipt when they received the goods in Bombay, the surveyor appointed by the appellant company, surveyed the consignment and found 509 bags short landed and 471 bags in torn and burst open with their contents fully spilled-out. It is in these conditions a claim was preferred with the appellant for Rs. 6,66,865 in addition to, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of bank interest and interest towards the claimed amount. When the claim was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service. The matter was contested by the appellant before us taking two main grounds, namely, the vessel used for import was not on the approved list of G.I.C., which was a violation of the condition of the policy. It was also the stand of the appellant before the State Commission that Section 64(V)(B) of the Indian Insurance Act, has not been complied with, i.e., premium for insurance had not been given, hence, there was no liability on the part of the appellant insurance company. The State Commission after hearing the parties, through a detailed order accepted the complaints and passed the following orders:
(in Complaint no. SC/2/O/2000)
“In view of the foregoing discussions, it is ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs. 6,66,865 together with interest on the claim amount from 1st July 1997 till payment @12% (twelve) p.a. We also deem it appropriate to pass an order for litigation cost of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the OP to the complainant. All the payments as awarded shall be made within two months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 8% (eight per cent) p.a. till the payment is made. The complaint petition is accordingly disposed of”.
(in Complaint no. SC/3/O/2000)
“In view of the foregoing discussions, it is ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs.15,50,174 together with interest on the claim amount from 1st February 1997 till payment @12% (twelve) p.a. We also deem it appropriate to pass an order for litigation cost of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the OP to the complainant. All the payments as awarded shall be made within two months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order, failing which the defaulted awarded amount shall carry interest @ 8% (eight per cent) p.a. till the payment is made in full. The complaint petition is accordingly disposed of.”
4. Aggrieved by the orders passed
