NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Lokesh Machines Ltd. – Complainant
versus
New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.29 of 2004
Decided on 1.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002 – Rg.9 - Services - Insurance – Transit Insurance - Damage to consignment – mishandled - Repudiation of Claim – Complaint seeking claim amount - Various clauses of Terms and Condition relating to Duty of Assured to minimise loss has been referred in the repudiation letter - In the present case, damage was caused as the consignment had fallen down from 4 to 5 feet height, while unloading from the vessel at the sea port Madras. No further damage occurred due to delay in transporting consignment from Chennai or Thiruvothiyur as such this clause was not applicable. Repudiation letter is based upon irrelevant consideration – From Survey Report dated 07.05.2001, the damage in the consignment was proved - The Insured has claimed Rs.12760000/- as repair charges, Rs.46000/- as transit insurance, Rs.104520/- as fright, Rs.3600/- as Survey fee, which are payable. The Insured claimed Rs.5046739/- as custom duty but sum insured was Rs.30/- lacs as such only Rs.30/- lacs is payable. The Insured was entitled to Rs.15914120/- - In case of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2 per cent, above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year, in which the claim is reviewed by it – Thus the complainant is partly allowed. The Insurer is directed to pay Rs.15914120/- along with interest @9% per annum from April, 2003 till the date of actual payment. [Paras 6 to 8].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. C.N. Moorthy, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. M/s. Lokesh Machines Limited has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties to pay (i) Rs.20836791/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of actual payment, (ii) Rs.30/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (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 public limited company, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacture of machines tools and accessories and serving prestigious customers viz TELCO, Ashok Leyland, L&T Johndeere, Mahindra & Mahindra, Escort, Bajaj Auto and Honda Motors etc. To cater the increasing needs of its customers in the automobile industry and also as a part of expansion, the complainant company intended to import a Portal Machining Center with financial assistance from IDBI under Export Promotion Capital Goods License from Federal Republic of Germany.
(b) When the machine was ready for dispatch at manufacturer’s premises in Federal Republic of Germany, the complainant took Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the opposite party) on 29.01.2001, for coverage of Rs.5.7 crores, on the Cost, Insurance and Freight value and Rs.30/- lacs on custom duty. The parts of the machine were securely packed in 11 consignments and shipped from Hamburg Port, Federal Republic of Germany on 03.03.2001 and arrived at Chennai Sea Port, India on 25.04.2001. While unloading from the vessel at Channai Sea Port, Package No.5/11 containing the Milling and Boring Head slipped from the forklift and fallen down.
(c) Suspecting damages, the Insured immediately reported to the Regional Office of the Insurer through letter dated 02.05.2001. The Insurer appointed M/s. Suvega Surveyors, Chennai to survey and assessment of the loss on 02.05.2001. The surveyor inspected the damaged package from 02.05.2001 to 05.05.2001 and submitted Survey Report dated 07.05.2001, stating that (i) One large cardboard box was found torn, though the contents of smaller packed cardboard boxes (containing some accessories) were in sound condition. (ii) A crack and bend were visible on the top portion of the Slide Frame. (iii) Bracket of Plunger Pump (0600/R2-1) found bent. (iv) Oil leakage was observed as seen by the oil soaking on the bottom wooden plank. (v) Cross Rail Guide found grooved (deep scratch) at the bottom. He observed that due to bend and crack in the frame of the slide, assembly may not be practicable with other section without rectification. Functional damage to any other component or components could be identified only at the time of testing the machining Centre after assembly. He further noticed that during inquiry from Steamer Agents, it was gathered that Package No.5/11 was landed sound from the vessel on 26.04.2001. While shifting the package on the wharf on 30.04.2001, the port crew damaged the wooden case as forklift was used for lifting and moving on wharf instead of crane (as clearly marked by the shippers on the wooden case) and the package was dropped from 4 to 5 feet height.
(d) As advised by the surveyor, the Insured obtained Certificate of Landing Remarks from Madras Port Trust. The machine was shifted to Customs Bonded Warehouse, Thiruvottiyur, near Chennai till 03.12.2001, pending resolution of the duty issue with the Custom Authorities. After resolving custom issue by the Custom Authorities, the packages were shifted to Hyderabad to the Insured facility during 03.12.2001 to 06.12.2001. All the necessary precautions were taken in shifting the machine from Sea Port to Customs Bonded Warehouse and thereafter to the warehouse of the Insured at Balanagar.
(e) The Insured informed the
SupremeToday
(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....
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.
(1) Surveyor – The conclusions drawn by the surveyor to just cast a doubt as indicted above, in the opinion of the Commission, amounts to an adhoc assessment and rather an arbitrary avoidance of taki....
(1) Liability – The liability of the Insurance Company under the policy is clear as the claim is reimbursable in terms of the risk cover under clause-1 of the schedule pertaining to the sinking of a ....
Insurers are not liable for losses arising from the insured's failure to follow operational guidelines; the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish policy coverage.
It cannot be assumed that complainant had submitted false and fabricated documents before insurance company while taking insurance policy.
Inundated - The rainfall measured 24 cm on a single day on 24th August, 2000. Many areas of these cities were inundated. As such, it is proved that cause of loss was inundation due continuous rain fa....
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.