IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim cannot be repudiated without any reason.

Vinay Kumar Member—The Complainant in this Original Petition is a registered partnership firm, in business as a grain merchant. The petition relates to a transaction of import of 188.613 tons of pigeon peas from a seller in Singapore, but this consignment was actually loaded in Myanmar and was being shipped to India. A significant part of the goods carried in this ship, “M V Jaipur” could reportedly not be unloaded due to certain problems relating to their condition. Eventually the vessel “M V Jaipur”, flying Singapore flag, had itself to be auctioned. The incident pertains to the year 1998. The Complainant M/s. Patel Shanabhai Darubhai & Company (herein after referred to as the Complainant) claims interest in this consignment through a transaction of High Sea sale between its original purchaser M/s. Ranchhodray Pulse Mills, Vasad (hereinafter referred to as RPMV) and the Complainant.

2. The case of the Complainant is that the consignment was purchased by his vendor M/s. RPMV on 11.04.1998 from his seller in Singapore. The Consignment was loaded from Yangon Port in Myanmar for India. M/s. RPMV had insured this consignment with the Opposite Party for ‘ 24.5 lacs under a transit insurance policy of 13.02.1998. The Complainant claims his interest in this consignment under a transaction of High Sea sale executed by M/s. RPMV in favour of the Complainant, subsequently during the same month i.e. April, 1998.

3. As per the complaint petition, the concerned vessel, M V Jaipur, reached Mumbai around 27.04.1998. When the clearing agent of the Complainant went to take delivery of the consignment it was learnt that about 1043 metric tones of cargo in Hold No.2 was not allowed to be discharged by the Mumbai Port Trust and the ship was directed on 14.5.1998 to move out of Mumbai Port. The reason apparently was that foul smell was emanating from this cargo. The Complainant subsequently learnt that the owner of MV Singapore had declared General Average due to fire on board in Hold No.2 of this vessel. The Complainant also claims to have executed the Average Bond and forwarded the same to the Average Adjuster M/s. Richards Hogg Lindley India Ltd., as per the advice of the latter to M/s. RPMV. The requisite Average Guarantee was executed by Opposite Party, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The cargo in Hold No. 2, including the consignment claimed by the Complainant, could not be unloaded as it was declared unfit for human consumption by the Public Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 21.05.1998.

4. According to the Complainant, despite execution of the Average Bond by him and several other consignees relating to the cargo in Hold No.2, the ship owner could not discharge the consignment due to the problem of stability of the vessel till 10.07.1998. In this background, M/s. RPMV filed a claim on 17.8.1998 with the OP-Insurance Company for the total value of the consignment under the policy, “for the benefit of the Complainant”.

5. As seen from the Complaint Petition, on 28.1.1999, M/s. Kalidas Narsinh and Co., the clearing and forwarding agent appointed by the Complainant, had requested the M/s. Subhash Chandra and Associates, Mumbai, who were appointed as Surveyor by the Opposite Party, to inspect Hold No.2 in the vessel and draw samples of the damaged/sound cargo. The Surveyor responded on 02.02.1999 stating that they had drawn the samples from Hold No.2 and sought instructions to forward the samples for testing. Subsequently, the Complainant wrote to the Opposite Party on 04.02.1999 seeking advice of the latter on the question of incurring expenditure on an operation to salvage stocks, mentioning that if no reply were received within seven days, the Complainant would presume that the Opposite Party was not interested in salvage operation. This letter was replied by the Opposite Party on 08.02.1999 informing that detailed report of the Surveyor was still awaited and advising the Complainant