Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. New India Detergents Ltd. —Complainant
versus
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.2042 of 2016
Decided on 14.2.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – outbreak of Civil War – Complaint filed for alleged repudiation of claim by Insurance Company – Whether the repudiation of Claim was justified – the first argument of the Opposite Party was that the Complainant had not placed on record any evidence to prove that there was war like situation in Yemen. In para 6 of the Written Statement, Opposite Party admitted that civil war erupted in Yemen. In this regard, Opposite Party filed Wikipedia Report dated 19th March, 2015 as Annexure R/1 to the Written Statement. On one hand the Opposite stated that there was no war in Yemen, on the other hand they take the ground in the Written Statement that civil war had erupted in Yemen on 21.03.2015. The Opposite Party cannot be permitted to blow both hot and cold at the same time – Further, Opposite Party also argued that civil war in Yemen began on 21.03.2015, which was in the knowledge of the Complainant in spite of that and the bill of lading was executed by the Complainant on 28.03.2015 – Therefore on facts, the repudiation of claim by the Opposite Party was not justified. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.80,18,944/- incurred by the Complainant towards storage charges within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which Opposite Party is directed to pay interest on this amount @ 9% per annum from the date of this order – Complaint allowed. [Paras 14 to 18].
Held: Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that damage or expense caused by delay was excluded under the Policy. Further, the Opposite Party took the ground that the case of the Complainant was covered under exclusion Clause 6 of the Policy. As held earlier the Complainant took effective and reasonable steps to minimize the damage/loss to the cargo. The Complainant had to store the cargo at King Abdullah Port, Saudi Arabia from 03.04.2015 to 15.06.2015, due to war like situation in Yemen, which was beyond the control of the Complainant. The delay was caused in order to protect the cargo. The Opposite Party failed to prove that there was willful delay on the part of the Opposite Party.
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
The present case is filed under Section 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant deals with manufacturing of Labsa chemicals and selling the same to different places in India and across the world. The Opposite Party is Insurance Company.
3. The case of the Complainant is that they obtained a Marine Specific Policy with CRM Policy No.1-3FBEHHQ-P400 Policy No.21926087 from the Opposite Party Insurance Company by paying a premium of Rs.37,045/-. The Policy was valid from 20.03.2015 to 19.09.2015 for a sum insured of Rs.47,100,240/-. The regular mode of conveyance of the Insured commodity was sea and voyage from Gujarat Warehouse to Yemen Warehouse. The Complainant dispatched 30 Containers of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid from Gujarat, India to Aden Port, Yemen through Opposite Party No.2, vide bill of lading MSCUIX883110 dated 28.03.2015. In the first week of April, 2015, there was an unrest war like situation, which erupted in Yemen and as a result, all the ports in Yemen were closed, due to which the cargo was stored at the transit port i.e. King Abdullah Port, Saudi Arabia from 03.04.2015 till 15.06.2015 to minimize the loss/damage, for which the Complainant paid Rs.80,18,944/- to Opposite Party No.2 on 06.06.2015. The Complainant also intimated Opposite Party No.1 Insurance Company about the same, vide letter dated 20.06.2015. In the middle of June, 2015, the situation improved in Yemen and Hodeida Port in Yemen was the only port which became operational. Therefore, the carriers transported the consignment to Hodeida Port on 23.06.2015 and the buyer M/s. Red Sea Detergent Co. Ltd. received the insured items from the port of Hodeida, Yemen.
4. On 20.06.2015, the Complainant, submitted the claim before the Opposite Party for reimbursement of Rs.80,18,944/-. The Opposite Party, vide email dated 01.07.2015, asked the Complainant to furnish copy of bills of lading, invoice copy, sales contract, payment particulars, details of correspondences exchanges related to the event (with carrier/ consignees/ authorities etc.) etc. On 04.07.2015, the Complainant submitted the documents sought by the Opposite Party. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party, vide 17.11.2015, to settle the claim immediately. The Opposite Party, vide email dated 23.11.2015, repudiated the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant sent legal notice dated 11.06.2016 to Opposite Party No.1. On 05.07.2016, Opposite Party No.1 sent their reply to the Legal Notice refuting the claim of the Complainant.
5. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1, Complainant filed the instant Complaint before this Commission the following prayer:-
“Direct the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay to the Complainant:
A. Towards storage charges etc. paid at the transit port Rs.80,18,944/-
B. Interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment by the Complainant to Opposite Party No. 2 on 6th June, 2015 upto the date of filing of the Complaint till 28th November, 2016 on the ground that the Opposite Party wrongly, malafide and illegally is withholding the legitimate dues of the Complainant. Rs.28,31,456/-
(B) That due to the wrong, malafide and illegal withholding the legitimate dues of the Complainant, the Complainant has suffered a great business loss, harassment, disappointment, which loss is assessed as Cost of Litigation Rs.5,00,000/-
Total Loss suffered by the Complainant Future and pendente lite interest @ 24% p.a. on the awarded amountRs.1,17,50,400
To direct the Opposite Party No. 1, Insurance Company to place on record the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Such other or further relief as in the opinion of this Hon’ble Commission may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”
6. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing Written Statement. The Op
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
