Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
M/s Tetra Pak India
Private Limited – Complainant
versus
M/s United India Insurance
Company Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.357 of 2014
Decided on 15.11.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim - Logistics – Packaging – Additional box loaded – absence of any evidence to support the assertion - beyond the trailer or suffered severe jerks - Responsibility of the complainant - Complaint has been filed for alleged deficiency of services - It is not in dispute that the loading and stowage of the three boxes comprising the consignment was done under the supervision of the complainant. The selection of the trailer was also done by him - The opposite party has contended that there was another box that was loaded in the front which resulted in the box of the Accumulator Helix being located towards the rear end and suffering greater jerks during transit, including projecting beyond the trailer. The issue of the additional box being loaded is disputed by the complainant. It is argued that in view of there not being such a box having been loaded, there is no question of the three boxes in the consignment having not been accommodated on the trailer and therefore getting impacted by violent/aggravated jerks on the journey from Pune to Khurda. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to support this finding - 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 Pune, this assertion cannot be held as valid - The complainant cannot resile from this position at this stage. The issue of whether the box containing the transported goods protruded beyond the trailer or suffered severe jerks has to be the responsibility of the complainant who was primarily responsible for its stowage and lashing and had, in fact, had it done under his supervision – On facts, complaint is dismissed. [Paras 6 to 12].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Subhash Chandra—This complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice seeking compensation along with interest and other costs in respect of the loss caused during transportation by the opposite party of machinery imported by the complainant and covered by insurance obtained from the opposite party.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, M/s Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd, a leading company for food processing and packaging solutions, had obtained a Marine Cargo Open Policy valid from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,50,00,00,000/- by paying an annual premium of Rs.57,63,176/- for transport for transportation of goods including machinery and containers from outside and within India by air, sea, rail or road. The complainant had imported an equipment called Accumulator Helix 30 for leasing to Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (HCCBPL) under an Equipment Rental Agreement. For this purpose the equipment was transported from Charleston, South Carplina, USA to Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai at a cost of Rs.79,90,412.55 as per exchange rate on 27.6.2012. The consignment was received in Mumbai on 04.08.2012 without any landing remarks or any damage and was despatched to the complainant’s premises in Takwe, Pune on 17.04.2012 by complainant’s custom agent, Vipra Services India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant thereafter despatched the consignment to HCCBPL through Contour Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (CLPL) on 11.09.2012. As per consignment note, the declared asset value was Rs.2,52,64,000/-. The consignment was loaded under supervision of the complainant and transported in an open trailer in three wooden cases (‘boxes’), containing the Accumulator Helix 30, Tray Shrink 30 and local installation material. It is stated by the complainant that the Accumulator Helix was placed at the rear end of the trailer. The consignment was received at the Khurda factory of HCCBPL on 16.09.2012 and was found to be received in a damaged condition when unpacked. One box was found partially broken/damaged at the bottom. The complainant was informed by the vendor M/s Siddhartha Installations on 25.09.2012. The complainant informed the insurance broker on 27.09.2012. a claim of Rs.11,00,000/- was filed initially on 11.10.2012. A preliminary survey was carried out by the First Surveyor, S.K. Brahma, on 04.10.2012. According to the complainant, the manufacturer, Hartness International informed on 28.11.2012 that the cost of repair would exceed the original cost of the Accumulator Helix 30. The complainant therefore supplied a new equipment to HCCBPL.
3. According to the complainant, the loss assessed by his engineer was revised to Rs.1,23,92,500/- and was intimated to the insurance broker on 13.12.2012 as also to the transporter, CLPL. The opposite party appointed another surveyor, Bhadra Insurance Surveyors & Losss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. who conducted a survey on 20.12.2012. As per the report of the first surveyor, the cause of loss was concluded to be jerks/jolts during transit or rough handling during loading/unloading. During a meeting between the complainant, opposite party CLPL and the second surveyor on 19.08.2013 it was confirmed that cause of damage was continuous jolts/jerks/bumping of the trailer during transit from Pune to Bhadra and that no overloading or oversized materials were loaded as the process was under supervision of the complainant. The transporter, CLPL, vide a “Damage Certificate” dated 12.09.2012 stated that the consignment was in a sound condition when loaded under supervision of the complainant, that there were no oversized boxes, that the trailer was not overloaded or the boxes placed in a wrong manner. It was also stated that jerks to the trailer during transit was the cause of damage. According to the second surveyor, damage occurred during transit due to faulty loading on the tra
SupremeToday
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....
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....
The liability of carriers for damages arises during transportation unless they prove lack of negligence; rights under a subrogation agreement permit maintenance of a complaint by an insurer.
(1) Manufacturer – Since the loss/damage to the drilling machine in question has occurred during transportation, there was no fault on the part of the opposite party No.1/Manufacturer(2) Self Employm....
The Carrier's liability for the loss, damage, or non-delivery of goods entrusted to it is not limited or affected by any public notice unless there is a special contract signed by the owner of the pr....
(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....
(1) Surveyors - Surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Companies and they work strictly as per the directions given and the mandate assigned to them by the Insurance Companies.(2) Independent mind ....
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
