NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. ITW India Ltd. – Complainant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.14 of 2012
Decided on 28.10.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Section 58 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Complaint before NCDRC – Complainant Co. procured HDR System, manufactured from US in 2006, erected and commissioned in 2007 - During operation, due to failure in electronic circuitry, equipment failed in Aug. 2007 - Complainant informed the supplier about the defect - Cost of repair estimated to be around US$ 19100/- by the manufacturer - Surveyor wasn’t permitted to verify actual damaged parts either at initial stage of inspection or at later stage; he filed both Survey Reports on the basis of photographs - Loss not covered in insured perils rather falls in exclusion clause 4.3 of Terms of Policy, thus claim was repudiated - Complainant lodged insurance claim with the Opp. Party – Claim repudiated per letter dt. 20.12.2010 – Hence, the Complaint – Findings of this Commission: None of the parties took any plea that there was any defect in packaging, neither agent of the complainant nor the manufacturer’s engineers informed that the damage was caused due to vibration or jerk during transit - If damage was during transit, due to freezing of water and its expansion, then the only cause for damage was that water remained inside the machine before packaging - Finding in the repudiation letter dt. 20.12.2010 that loss had occurred due to improper preparation prior to the shipment does not suffer from any illegality. (Paras 4, 9, 11 & 13)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. L. R. Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate, for the opposite party, through video conferencing.
2. The complainant filed an application i.e. I.A. No. 23597 of 2018, for changing the name of the complainant as “M/s. Singdone India Ltd.”. It has been stated that during pendency of the complaint, entire business, assets and liability of the complainant’s company has been transferred in favour of “M/s. Singdone India Ltd.” through agreement dated 30.11.2013 as such “M/s. Singdone India Ltd.” is entitled to be substituted as the complainant. No counter has been filed to this application as such I.A. No. 23597 of 2018 is allowed. “M/s. Singdone India Ltd.” is substituted as the complainant.
3. M/s. ITW India Ltd. (the complainant) (hereinafter referred to as the Insured) filed aforementioned complaint, for directing M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (the opposite party) (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) to pay Rs. 10823432/-(equivalent to USD 271400/-) as damages to the consignment in course of transit and Rs. 5159000/- being the value of custom duty and incidental expenses, under Insurance Policy No. 611900/21/07/01/00000636, (hereinafter referred to as Policy No. 636), as insurance claim, interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount, from 01.04.2008 till the date of its realization, Rs. one lakh, for harassment, Rs. one lakh, as cost of litigation and any other or further relief which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. It has been stated in the complaint that the Insured was a limited liability company and engaged in the business of Industrial packaging, Power Systems & Electronic, Transportation, Construction Products, Food Equipment, Decorative Surfaces, Polymers & Fluids and other segments. The Insurer was a Public Sector and engaged in business of providing Insurance Services. The Insured procured HDR System, manufactured by M/s. Amtek HDR Power Systems Columbus, OH, in the year 2006, which was erected and commissioned in February, 2007. During operation, due to failure in electronic circuitry, the equipment failed in August, 2007. The Insured informed the supplier, about the defect in HDR System, who advised to send the back HDR System to their workshop in Columbus OH, for its repairing. The cost of repair was estimated to be around US$ 19100/- by the manufacturer. Expert issued written instructions dated 10.09.2007, detailing therein, the precautions and steps to be taken to prepare the consignment before shipping i.e. (i) Water drained in inlet and out let headers by opening the drain valves. (ii) Forced air through inlet header drain valve after closing the main inlet and outlet valves. (iii) Drained water through the drain of outlet header till water stopped gushing out. (iv) All the water pipes from inverter section were opened while separating both the cubicles and no water was found flowing from these pipes. The Insured approached the Insurer for insurance of the consignment against transit risks, while being transported to Columbus. The Insurer deputed Deshpande Associates, Insurance Surveyor & Investigators, Secunderabad to pre-insurance survey and inspection, who inspected the equipment thoroughly and submitted his report dated 09.10.2007. On being satisfied with pre-insurance inspection report, the Insurer accepted the premium of Rs. 6675/- and issued Marine Cargo (Specific Voyage Policy) i.e. Policy No. 636, on 11.10.2007, extending coverage of Rs.11880000/- and risk covered was “Institute Cargo Clause (A)”, of the said equipment, which was in two wooden packed consignments containing No. 1550 KW Heat Treat Power Supply as per invoice No. HDR/01, DT dated 06.10.2007, from warehouse to warehouse, along with extended cover of 10% at Rs. 5159000/-. The consignments were loaded in Vessel Normandie Bridge Voyage: IO48W at port of Nhava Sheva on 24.11.2007 and discharged at port of Norfolk on 15.12.2007, thereafter shipped by railw
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.