Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Renaissance RTW (Asia) (P) Ltd. – Complainant
versus
Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.101 of 2016
Decided on 27.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Insurance – Transit Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Liability of Insurance Company - Whether repudiation is justified – Insurance termination of delivery of contingent at final Warehouse - Complaint has been filed directing the opposite party to pay insurance policy – It is clear from the Insurance Policy that that transit terminates on delivery of the consignment at final warehouse or the place of storage - In the present case, the consignments were safely delivered and stored in a bonded warehouse - At that time duration of insurance has already came to an end. As such the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss under the policy. No other terms of insurance policy has been pointed out to say that the policy would continue till the consignment was delivered to the buyer. Additional Intermediate storage extension was given under the Marine Open Policy, is in respect of any loss/damage that occurs during the storage period at seaport in India and not in U.S.A. The repudiation letter does not suffer from any illegality – Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. [Paras 8 to 10]
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Govind Jee, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Renaissance RTW (Asia) (P) Ltd. has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to pay (i) US$ 166620.19/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of actual payment, as insurance claim (ii) Rs.one crore, as compensation for business loss, (iii) cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it are as follows:—
(a) The complainant was a private limited company, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of manufacture and export of the garments. The complainant entered into a contract with M/s. Fitzroy Sales Inc. USA, acting on behalf of M/s. Army and Air Force Exchange Services, USA, for export of the garments, including T. Shirts, Polo for women, men and children. As per terms and contracts, the US Company had to place purchase orders periodically in accordance with which the complainant had to effect delivery as and when required. The contract envisaged that the complainant would be responsible for international freight, domestic freight in USA and import duty.
(b) The complainant took Marine Cargo Open Policy-All i.e. Policy No. MO-0007359-000-02 from M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (the opposite party) for the period of 07.04.2012 to 06.04.2013, with additional 30 days coverage, for insurance coverage of Rs.150/- crores. The policy inculcates the Institute Cargo Clauses (A), being applicable. The terms of the insurance policy was that the coverage would extend till the vendor takes physical possession of goods at the point of delivery, being warehouse in New Jersey.
(c) In pursuance of the purchase orders from M/s. Fitzroy Sales Inc. USA, the complainant exported 50526 garments vide Invoice Nos. RTW/077/12-13 dated 01.06.2012, RTW/163/12-13 dated 01.08.2012 and RTW/189/12-13 dated 20.09.2012. The consignments were sent through vessel from Colombo to New York NY, where it was safely unloaded and stored in a bonded warehouse of M/s. Empire Warehousing and Distribution Inc., 5 Empire Boulevard in Carlstadt, New Jersey, with whom the complainant had a contract of storage.
(d) On 29/30.10.2012, a severe storm, named as “Hurricane Sandy” hit the shores of North America, in particular New Jersey and wrecked considerable damage. The garments worth US$ 166620.19 were severely damaged due to wetting in water at the warehouse. The complainant informed the Insurer about the loss and submitted insurance claim. The Insurer referred the claim to W.K. Webster (Overseas) Ltd. an International Claim Settler, who appointed International Surveyors & Adjusters (USA), for survey and assessment of loss. The surveyor inspected the warehouse on 02.01.2013 and 25.03.2013 and submitted his preliminary report dated 15.04.2013, in which, he confirmed damage of approximately 20000 garments, due to water.
(e) As the complainant did not receive any information, regarding settlement of the claim, it approached his insurance agent, who made query from the Insurer. The Insurer forwarded an email dated 27.03.2013 to insurance agent, stating that the complainant would be liable to bear the loss, citing “Free on Board” terms. In addition, this was damage whilst being storage hence liability of the Insurer would not engage. They were awaiting comprehensive survey report.
(f) After email dated 27.03.2013, the complainant did not receive any message for unreasonable long period, from the Insurer, he gave a legal notice dated 09.01.2014 to the Insurer. In spite of service of legal notice, the Insurer did not give any reply, then another legal notice dated 05.07.2014 was sent to the Insurer. Apart from it, a representation dated 07.07.2014 was sent for settlement of the claim. In spite of service of all the
SupremeToday
Transit Policy - It is clear from the Insurance Policy that that transit terminates on delivery of the consignment at final warehouse or the place of storage - In the present case, the consignments w....
The repudiation of the insurance claim was valid as coverage ceased upon delivery, and the insured failed to take reasonable care to protect the goods as required under the policy terms.
Delivery - The fact that delivery itself was not accomplished, and a claim was raised, the issue of applicability of the clause of ‘or 7 days whichever is earlier’ would not apply.
The failure to comply with the Institute Classification Clause in marine insurance policies results in a fundamental breach, negating coverage for cargo loss.
(1) Claim of Insured not been repudiated rather it has been accepted, as such various grounds raised in written reply/arguments for repudiation of the claim have to be ignored. (2) It is well settled....
Additional box loaded - In the absence of any evidence to support the assertion that there was an additional box loaded in the front of the trailer before the transportation of the consignment from P....
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
