The court emphasized the importance of a clear and categorical finding on the cause of damage to the goods in interpreting insurance claims, highlighting the vagueness of the insurance company's repudiation.

ORDER

IA No. 181 of 2016.

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Revision Petition

This Revision Petition, by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), is directed against the order, dated 11.5.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short "the State Commission") in FA/608/2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 9.4.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jallandhar (for short "the District Forum") in CC/225/2010. By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent, with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay to them an amount of Rs. 11,27,097/-, as compensation for the loss suffered on account of damage to the goods exported by the Respondent to Genoa (Italy), with a default stipulation of payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till realization.

2. Succinctly put, the facts material for deciding the Revision Petition are that the Respondent/Complainant had received an order for export of Hand Tools to M/s Viglietta Matteo SPA via Torrino 55, 12045 FOSSA No.C.N. Italy. The goods were exported sometime in December 2008. The Respondent had obtained a Marine Cargo Open Cover, termed as Marine Certificate, from the Insurance Company covering the risk against loss/damage to the goods exported during the transit. When the container was de-stuffed, at the place of its destination, it was found that the consignment was damaged. Accordingly, on 16.2.2009, the importer asked for appointment of a surveyor. Acceding to the request, one Gastaldi International s.r.l., Claims and Settling Agents, was appointed as the surveyor. On inspection of the consignment on 26.2.2009, the surveyor submitted its report sometime in April 2009. The penultimate paragraph, indicating the cause of damage to the goods, reads as follows :

"Cause of damage

The extension of the wetting (all the pallets contained cartons which were all more or less wet) and its superficiality (the wetting involved the external cartons, almost never the single boxes inside) were the typical characteristics of a wetting due to condensation developed inside the container and even more inside the polyethylene sheets wrapping the pallets.

In view of the container's condition it is reasonable to believe that the condensation might have been caused by some water seeped into the container through the lesions ascertained in the roof's sheeting."

3. Accepting the said report, vide its letter dated 17.8.2009, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, the relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows :

"This is an export claim and we are not aware about the exact cause/quantum of loss and we have to very truly rely on the survey report and other documents received by us from that country. NOW please note that cause of loss as explained by the surveyor is not payable as per the terms/conditions of the policy. The loss which is not payable (have doubts) how that can be settled by us. In the light of the above facts, please note that as per the present survey report, claim is not payable because the cause of loss explained by the surveyor is beyond the scope of the policy."

4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed the Complaint, inter alia, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 11,27,097/- as loss suffered on account of damage to the goods; reimburse the forwarding charges amounting to Rs. 89,000/-; Rs. 2 lakh as compensation/punitive damages along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the claimed amount from 7.2.2009, the date when the goods reached Genoa till realization.

5. Accepting the Complaint, the District Forum issued the afore-noted directions. Commenting on the survey report, the District Forum observed thus :

"Ex. C20 is the survey report. In the surve