Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
JAPNA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 186, SAINIK VIHAR, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110 034 - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Original Petition No. 116 of 2002.
Decided on : 14-09-2015
Prakash Sinha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Kishore Rawat, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fulfilling duties under the insurance policy, including the duty to inform the insurer about the loss of goods immediately, the requirement to lodge claims at the destination, and the need to prove the loss of goods with cogent and unflappable evidence. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of cooperation with the insurance company.
Headnote:
Insurance - Marine Open Policy - Clause 25 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Marine Insurance Open Policy, Civil Code, Institute Cargo clause - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Clause 25 of the Marine Open Policy, Article 1715 of the Civil Code, and the Institute Cargo clause. The court emphasized the importance of immediate notice and application for survey in case of loss or damage, and the time limitations for filing claims under the insurance policy. The court also highlighted the duty of the assured to inform the insurer about the loss of goods immediately and the requirement to lodge claims at the destination. The judgment emphasized the need for the complainant to prove the loss of goods with cogent and unflappable evidence, and the importance of cooperation with the insurance company. The court found that the case was barred by time and dismissed the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a manufacturer and exporter of mosquito repellents, mats, and related products, obtained a Marine Open Policy for transportation of goods. The complainant exported goods to Russia, but a balance amount remained unpaid. The complainant initiated litigation for recovery of the amount guaranteed, but the courts in Latvia dismissed the claim. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission seeking payment and compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was barred by time and dismissed the complaint. It emphasized the duty of the assured to inform the insurer about the loss of goods immediately, the requirement to lodge claims at the destination, and the need for the complainant to prove the loss of goods with cogent and unflappable evidence. The court highlighted the importance of cooperation with the insurance company and emphasized that the complainant had no bone to pluck with the OPs.
Issues: The key issue was whether the complainant's claim for recovery of the amount guaranteed was barred by time and whether the complainant had fulfilled its duties under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the case was barred by time and emphasized the duty of the assured to inform the insurer about the loss of goods immediately, the requirement to lodge claims at the destination, and the need for the complainant to prove the loss of goods with cogent and unflappable evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of cooperation with the insurance company.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed by the court.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, (P.M) - Japna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the complainant, is a Manufacturer and Exporter of Mosquito repellents, mats and its related products. The complainant obtained a Marine Open Policy from the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP No.1. The aforesaid policy was taken for transportation of goods from 'Warehouse to Warehouse', in accordance with Clause 25 of the said Insurance policy. On 20.01.1999, the complainant entered into an Agreement for exporting Mosquito repellents, mats and its related products to Russia, with Blackfield International LLC, a Russian company, vide Annexure A-1.
2. As per the said agreement, the complainant was to supply Mosquito repellents, mats and its allied products to the Buyer. The Buyer was to provide Letter of Credit to the complainant for the above said transaction. However, the Buyer could not provide the Letter of Credit. It was mutually agreed between the parties to substitute the Letter of Credit with the Bank Guarantee. Pursuant to that Agreement, an unconditional Bank Guarantee was furnished by Baltic International Bank, Riga, Latvia, i.e. Guarantor Bank, holding effective banking licence duly confirmed by the Bank of Latvia vide their registration pursuant to Chapter 56 of the "On Credit Institution". The Guarantor Bank provided the Bank Guarantee on 04.02.1999, vide its copy, Annexure A-2.
3. The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, which is arrayed as OP2, extended the financial assistance to the complainant's on the basis of aforesaid Bank Guarantee. All the documents pertaining to the Export Transaction were routed by the complainant's Bank to the Baltic International Bank, being the Buyer's Bank. All the consignments were duly consigned to the destination and were sent to the Buyer at the appointed destination under the Marine Insurance Open Policy as provided by OP1. The details of the said consignments are detailed as below :-
Policy No. Bill of Lading/AWB No./Date Pkg. Insurance No. Certificate & Date
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12366292/30.03.1999 1611 42/003/99, dt. 05.04.1999
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12366281/30.03.1999 430 42/004/99, dt.05.04.1999
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12367655/16.04.1999 1400 42/023/99, dt,19.04.1999
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12367666/16.04.1999 300 42/024/99,dt. 19.04.1999
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12368005/07.05.1999 1150 42/073/99,dt. 17.05.1999
4200047 AWB No. SAM 12369405/10.05.1999 533 42/074/99, dt.17.05.1999
The OP1 issued confirmation of the complainant's Marine Open Policy No.360201/4203600 & 360201/4200047, vide letter dated 22.07.1999.
4. In respect of the last consignment dated 10.05.1999, valued at US$ 267595.12, the complainant received a payment of US$ 65000 from the Guarantor Bank, but the balance amount, totalling to US$ 202595.12 remains unpaid. OP2 requested the Guarantor Bank to make the payment of the residue amount, but it did not evoke any response from the Guarantor Bank. The complainant also requested the Embassy of India, Stockholm, Sweden to use their good offices and resolve the impasse, which sent letter dated 16.06.1999, vide its copy marked as Annexure A-4. However, all these efforts, did not bring the desired result. The complainant also sent details of export bills and invoked the said Bank Guarantee as provided by the Guarantor Bank vide letter dated 18.06.1999, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A-5. The Guarantor Bank demanded certain documents which were sent by OP2 to them. A copy of the fax dated 29.06.1999, marked as Annexure A-6, was sent by OP2 requesting to settle the matter, either by way of negotiations and alternatively, through a Court of Law. A copy of another fax dated 08.07.1999 was sent in this context, which has been placed on record as Annexure A-7. The Guarantor Bank tried to put off the matter and a collection of various letters in this regard were annexed as Annexure A-8 (colly). When all these efforts made by the complainant could not ring the bell, it initiated litigation for re
