IMPORTANT POINT
Forum Hopping cannot be permitted to any litigant.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Appellant/Complainant has filed the above noted First Appeals against common order dated 21.12.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (Complaint No.03 of 2006) and (Complaint Nos.03 to 20 of 2010) vide which 19 complaints filed by the appellant against Respondent/Opposite Party-Insurance Company were dismissed.

2. Since, facts are common and similar question of law is involved, as such these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

3. On 25.5.2006, appellant had filed 19 complaints before the State Commission, Haryana at Panchkula. It is alleged that, thereafter on the legal advice appellant filed 19 fresh complaints on 16/17.11.2006 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, since the Competent Authority of the respondent to take decision on the claims was at Regional Office at Chandigarh. Thereafter, appellant on 13.3.2007 withdrew 18 complaints pending before the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, whereas one complaint mistakenly was left behind and was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. With this background, we have to deal with above appeals. Appellant in the consumer complaints alleged that he was having a business of export of pharmaceutical products out of India and was holding valid licence for carrying on such export business. The petitioner firm purchased a Marine Insurance Open Cover from the respondent, vide Cover Note No.004196 for a sum insured of Rs.10 Crores covering the pharmaceutical products. The premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited with the respondent. On 3rd May, 2002, appellant signed an agreement with the intermediatory, M/s. Paktiya Trading LLC, Bur Dubai, UAE to provide good export orders. The appellant obtained two orders for supply of pharmaceutical products from M/s.“OOO” STROI-CONTROL,St.Petersburg through M/s.Paktiya Trading LLC on 4.11.2002 and 29.1.2003. The pharmaceutical products were dispatched to the buyer as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Total 19 invoices for a total amount of $11,35,578 were issued against the said sales. The present complaint is in respect of invoice No.119 dated 2.1.2003 issued for an amount of $ 43425 to the buyer M/s. “OOO” STROI-CONTROL. The dispatch of the consignment was declared/informed to the respondent and premium amount of Rs.3121/- was also debited to the firm’s deposit account with the respondent. An amount of Rs.1,46,667/- was further deposited by the Firm with the respondent on 10.1.2003. The extension of the duration period of the insurance cover by 28 days was made by the respondent on 11.4.2003 for which additional premium of Rs.2553/- was debited to the appellant firm’s deposit account with the respondent on 11.4.2003. The consignment was handed over to Multimodal Transport Company for final delivery at consignee’s place. On 14.5.2003, appellant received an E-mail from the consignee that the consignment in question had not reached the destination. Upon intimation, notice was sent to the M/s. Multimodal Transporter, M/s. Seasky Cargo & Travel Private Limited, New Delhi and forwarder Transporter, Aleborg Oy Vanha, Finland. Intimation was given to the respondent with regard to the notice. On 10.7.2003, appellant informed the respondent for non-delivery of consignments and consignee’s mail regarding ‘Non-locating of M/s. Ingosstrakh Insurance Company Ltd. at given address to whom respondent asked to contact. On 23.7.2003, M/s. Ingosstrakh Insurance Company Ltd. asked through E-mail for certain documents, which were sent on 25.7.2003. The respondent raised some queries and appellant submitted the required documents. Appellant requested the respondent for consignment but the respondent neither gave the consignment nor any payment. Surveyor Mr. J.R.Sharma was appointed by the respondent to investigate the matter. The surveyor demanded FIR from the appellant, but the appella