National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.130 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 15/10/2014 in Complaint No.62/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 15.3.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Neeraj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi and Ms. Wamika Trehan, Advocates
For the Respondent No.2: Ex-parte

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal against order of State Commission – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim by Insurance Company on the ground that the contract of insurance stood ceased at the time the Rig rolled out prior to its custody – Whether repudiation is justified – The Complainant got the Rig repaired and thereafter got the inspection completed, which was the condition precedent. It is not disputed by Opposite Party No.1 that the loss had occurred to the Rig due to rains. The Complainant claimed an amount of Rs.15,71,457/- for repair of the Rig. The Appellant Insurance Company cannot evade their responsibility taking shelter that the loss occurred due to negligence of the Complainant. This is only a bald allegation and the Appellant had not produced any evidence whatsoever to prove that there was negligence on the part of the Complainant – Therefore, impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant/Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs.13,48,474.04 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till the date of payment, Appeal disposed off. [Paras 15 to 18].
Result: Appeal disposed off.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party against the order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 62 of 2011 dated 15.10.2014.

2. Along with the Appeal IA/Nil/2015 an application for condonation of delay of 88 days has also been filed by the Appellant. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, application is allowed and delay condoned.

3. Complainant No.1 is engaged in the business of exploration, development and production and Coal Bed Methane. Opposite Party No.1 is a Nationalised Insurance Company and Respondent No.2 is an insurance agent of Respondent No.1, a proforma party. Case of the Complainant is that on 09.05.2007 they took Marine Policy No.100701/21/07/4300000019 insuring Mobile Rig (RD20 Atlas Copco) along with accessories and spares for Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Gas scheduled to be shipped from Houston, Texas to Asansol, West Bengal for sum insured of Rs.4,96,10,000/-. The Policy covered among others “all water damages including rain damages”. The Complainant purchased the Rig alongwith accessories and spares from its manufacturer at Houston, Texas which was shipped to Asansol, West Bengal via Mumbai Port by a Vessel named SAUDI HOFUF – V-132. On 23.06.2007, the consignment was discharged at Mumbai, Ballard Pier Extension, Indira Docks for onward road transport to Asansol and the said ship was waiting inspection and clearance from the Custom Authorities at Mumbai Port. The Rig was parked in the open. After clearance from the Authorities, the supplier of the Indian Representatives, M/s Atlas Copco, who was called on July 15, 2007 for inspection, noticed that the diesel engine did not respond on ignition as rain water had entered the engine crank casing through the exhaust pipe due to heavy rainfall at Mumbai.

4. The Surveyor J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. asked the Insurance Broker M/s Howden Insurance Brokers India Pvt. Ltd. to inform all parties concerned regarding survey of the said Rig. After survey, the Rig was transported to M/s GMMCO Ltd. Nagpur for repairing. During the joint inspection on 22.08.2008 by the Surveyor at Nagpur, it was found that various parts of the diesel engine got affected due to the rain water and were to be replaced. After incurring an expenditure of Rs.15,71,457/- towards repair of the said Rig, it was transported to Asansol its final destination. On 04.01.2008, the Complainant filed insurance claim of Rs.15,71,457/- with Respondent No.1 alongwith all the necessary documents. Thereafter, the Complainant pursued the matter with Opposite Party No.1. The claim was repudiated by the Opposite Party on 05.05.2009. Thereafter on 26.05.2009, a legal notice was served by the Counsel for the Complainant upon the Opposite Party No.1. On 8.10.2009, Opposite Party No.1 replied to the said legal notice and rejected the claim of the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service despite on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant filed a Complaint in the State Commission with the following prayer:-

“(a) Compensation and/or damages for a sum of Rs.27,72,949/- as pleaded in paragraph 31 herein to be paid to the Complainant by the respondent No.1

(b) Interest @ 18% per annum as pleaded in paragraph 32 herein until realization.

(d) Such further or other order/orders be passed and/or direction or directions be made as to this learned Redressal Commission may deem fit and proper.”

5. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that the Complaint was not maintainable. The cause of action arose on 05.05.2009 when the claim was repudiated and the Complaint was filed on 17.10.2011, after expiry of limitation period. The Complaint was barred by limitation.

6. On merit, the Opposite Party stated that the Rig booked for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document