IMPORTANT POINT
Underwriters are under obligation to reimburse Assured for any extra charges properly and reasonably incurred in unloading, storing and forwarding subject-matter to destination to which it is insured.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—Present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant obtained Marine Insurance Policy bearing No. No.260500/21/99/42/1729 dated 30.03.99 with Certificate No.260500/21/99/42/ 39 dated 01/12/1999 for covering the Ocean Freight and Value of Goods in transit by the shipment under the Bill of Lading No. SSZMB 1007 dated 20/10/1999 containing Oleo Pine Resin to the tune of 1188 Drums (240 MT.) valued at Rs.50.02 Lakhs. The said shipment was to be brought by Respondent No.2 –Consolidated Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. - as Carrier from the Port Santos in Brazil to Mumbai Port. Respondent No. 3 is the Branch Office of Respondent No. 2 in Mumbai. It is averred that freight from Brazilian Port to Mumbai Port was prepaid by the Complainant to their Suppliers, M/s. Planebras Commercio E Planesamentos Florestais S/A Sao Paulo Brazil through Letter of Credit who in turn paid the same to the Carrier. However, Respondent No. 2 Carrier, unloaded the said shipment at Durban Port instead of Mumbai Port. Subsequently, when the Complainant inquired about not reaching of the said shipment at Mumbai Port, it was revealed that the said shipment was unloaded at Durban Port by Carrier. Complainant requested several times to Respondent No. 2 Carrier for getting the consignment at Mumbai Port from Durban, but Respondent No. 2 pretended that the entire freight for the consignment has been paid but due to financial crisis, it did not have enough money to get the consignment at Mumbai port from Durban. Ultimately, Complainant paid additional freight of Rs.6,66,556.80 vide Pay order No.004926 dated 07/01/2000 to Respondent No.2 for carrying this shipment from Durban to Mumbai. Respondent No.2 agreed to repay the said amount to the Complainant and issued a post-dated cheque No.392616 dated 05/03/2000 against the repayment of said amount. However, the post-dated cheque issued by Respondent No.2 was dishonoured and they failed to refund the said amount to the Complainant despite repeated requests, It is the contention of the Complainant that Marine Policy was purchased by them form the Respondent Insurance Company to cover the risk of non-delivery of the consignment and since the additional freight/charges of Rs.6,66,556.80 was paid to ensure delivery of consignment, the Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company in terms of Clauses 12, 16.1 and 16.02 of the Marine Policy is liable to indemnify the loss and as such a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. Had this additional amount not been paid to the Carrier, the consignment wrongly unloaded at Durban would not have reached Mumbai and in such a situation, the Insurance Company was under an obligation to pay the entire claim of goods worth Rs.50 lakhs. But the Insurance Company did not consider the claim of the additional payment in respect of shipment and repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that it was beyond the purview of the Marine Insurance Policy. Aggrieved by the repudiation of insurance claim of additional payment of Rs.6,66,556.80 the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties for payment of Rs.12,32,103.40 which included the basic payment of Rs.6,66,556.80 alongwith interest @ 18% to the tune of Rs.4,40,546.59, Rs.1,00,000 towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards legal charges.

2. The Respondent No.1, Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing its written version before the State Commission. Respondent No. 2 & 3/ Carriers were proceeded ex parte as they did not contest the case before the State Commission.

3. The Insurance Company admitted that they had issued Marine Insurance Policy covering th