Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. – Complainant
versus
JCC India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.178 of 2010
Decided on 17.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Deficiency on the part of Insurance Company – The Insurance Co. therefore cannot now stand up to support the cause of the Complainant and the Complainant by its conduct in supporting the pre-dispatch inspection through the letter dated 23.11.2009 also stands on the same footing. The circumstance of another trailer of the same capacity having successfully transported a transformer of the same load capacity confirms that the transporting vehicles and their capacity were approved by the Insurance Co. as well as by the Complainant – The Insurance Co. conveniently seems to have exercised its foresight about the outcome of the litigation and immediately after the filing of the complaint compromised the matter with a lesser financial burden even though it seemed to be a total loss claim. The Complainant seems to have been under the impression that the rest of the damage would be realisable from the transporter who was liable for the damages caused – The Complainant allured by the compromise offered by the Insurance Co. seems to have given up its claim of total loss as indicated by the surveyor in the hope of getting indemnified by the transporter, but as discussed hereinabove we have not been able to find any good ground for imposing any liability on the Opposite Party No.1 transporter – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 20 to 60]
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President—This complaint has been filed claiming damages for deficiency in service by the opposite party no. 1, M/s. JCC India Private Limited for compensating the loss to the Complainant caused due to a consignment of transformer and its accessories having fallen from a 16 wheeler trailer when it was being transported from the Kolkata Port to its destination at the CESC’s Stores at Cossipore. The damaged consignment of the transformer was loaded on trailer no. NL01G0975, when it met with an accident at Circular Garden Reach Road near the Port Fire station under the West Port Police Station area in Kolkata on 14.11.2009 at 10.30 p.m.
2. According to the transporter, the opposite party no. 1, the accident occurred when a motor cyclist suddenly came in the path of the trailer, and in order to save his life the driver had to suddenly apply the brakes as a result whereof the connecting pin between the horse and the trailer got sheared. Resultantly, since the trailer was in a turning mode, the transformer fell of the trailer.
3. The transportation of the consignment was insured with the opposite party no. 2, M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited. The accident was reported to the police as well and information was sent to all concerned including a letter sent to the opposite party no. 1 on 20.11.2009.
4. With regard to the loss, a claim was separately lodged with the Insurance Company and since the Insurance Company declined the liability, Consumer Complaint No. 168 of 2010 was filed by the Complainant seeking indemnification only against the Insurance Company.
5. The present complaint, being CC/178/2010 was separately filed where the Complainant has arrayed the transporter/carrier, the opposite party no. 1 and has also arrayed the Insurance Company as the opposite party no. 2.
6. The complaint filed separately against the Insurance Company, namely, CC/168/2010 came to be compromised through some settlement and the Complainant moved an application for withdrawal of CC/168/2010. Simultaneously, the Complainant also issued a subrogation letter in favour of the Insurance Company, keeping in view the settlement which had been arrived at. The Insurance Company wrote a letter on 28.04.2011 requesting the Complainant for issuing the letter of subrogation, the Complainant to withdraw CC/168/2010 with a further request to allow the Insurance Company to join the Complainant as co-plaintiff so that the Insurance Company may not have to file a separate suit for recovery against the transporter. The text of the letter will appear a Little later in the narration of facts.
7. The settlement between the Insurance Company and the Complainant resulted in a declaration by the Complainant for release of all claims against the Insurance Company on 11.04.2011 which document has also been brought on record and would shortly appear hereinafter in the narration of facts.
8. The settlement with the Insurance Company was for Rs.1,86,98,462/- only. The said letter also declares that the settlement is a compromise of the disputed claims and the payment should not be considered as an admission of liability.
9. It may be pointed out that TATA AIG General Insurance Company was initially not an opposite party in this case and was representing the Insurance Company in CC/168/2010 that was withdrawn by the Complainant. Mr. Tripathi, Counsel for the Insurance Co. moved an application in the present case for impleading the Insurance Company. The said application has been mentioned in the order sheet dated 29.11.2010 and was allowed on 10.03.2011. Vide this order the opposite party no. 1, namely, the carrier was also granted time to file a reply to the stand taken by the Insurance Company. On 24.11.2011, the Commission was informed about the settlement made between the Insurance Company and the Complainant in CC/168/2010. The said proceedings were recorded before the Joint Registrar of this Commission. Interestingly, Mr. S. M. Tripathi, who is
Point of law: When the intention of the Legislation was to cover compulsorily ail the risk arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle and that the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that ....
The liability of a common carrier for the loss or damage of property is absolute unless there is a special contract limiting the liability, and the burden of proving absence of negligence is on the c....
1) Clause 4.3 of the Insurance Policy provided that the Respondent shall not be liable to pay the claim amt. in case there is loss or damage due to insufficiency or unsuitability in packing2) Survey ....
The Insurance Company cannot repudiate a valid claim if it failed to advise against potential policy breaches prior to the incident.
(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
