TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
R. Subbiah, President
KTV Health Food P. Ltd. – Complainant
versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Parties
C.C. No.230 of 2017
Decided on 31.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47 – Insurance – mixed up figures – On facts, if no risk occurs, there is no question of invoking the policy or lodging any claim; therefore, when the services of the Insurance Company are availed not to generate any income or profit but only to indemnify the loss arising from the risk covered by the policy. which in this instance is shortage of oil, it cannot be said that the MOC has anything to do with the commercial or profit-generating activities of the company – Also, despite the fact that the Complainant employed their independent Surveyor at the Discharge Port to record the operations and also the aspect that the Insurance Company is seemed to have deliberately abstained from appointing their side Surveyor at the relevant point of time, which lapse would inevitably impel them to accept the Survey Report forthcoming from the Complainant, for the reasons that the report emanating from the Complainant’s surveyor does not project the exact figures as given in the averments of the complaint and that it is not for this Commission to do calculation work for deriving break-up figures from the cumbersome survey report, Commission was not in a position to issue any positive direction in favour of the Complainant based on mixed up figures that also embrace the consignment belonging to one another unit of the Complainant – Thus, in the absence of essential and definite details to corroborate the figures as given in the complaint, no relief can be granted by this Commission in the present summary proceedings – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 5 to 10]
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
R. Subbiah, President—Alleging service deficiency against the OPs herein/Insurance Company that it had unfairly repudiated their admissible insurance claim arising from the Marine Open Cover Policy by resorting to unfair trade practice and in clear deviation of the IRDAI Regulations, the Insured/Company have come up with this present Complaint, seeking to direct the OPs to pay to them a sum of Rs. 23.11.058 with interest 15% on the said amount from 25.04.2014 till 15.05.2017 that comes to Rs. 33,70,979 along with future interest at the same rate from 16.05.2017 till realization and another sum of Rs. 50,000 for transportation & other charges incurred by the Complainant and Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the OPs, besides a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards litigation expenses.
2. In brief, the case of the Complainant is as follows:
The Complainant is doing the business of importing edible oils from overseas to India and manufacturing/selling the finally refined product in the Southern States. For coverage of Import/Export of Edible Oil and Fats, after being approached by the 1st OP, the Complainant took Marine Open Cover Policy (in short MOC Policy) bearing No. 6502001300002 from the said OP and it was valid from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. The said Cover, which was as per Institute Cargo Clause (ICC)-A and Bulk Oil Clause Terms, was taken against all kinds of risks to the subject matter/oil imported through Vessels. Apart from import voyages, the policy, by virtue of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the MOU which is a part thereof, also covers inland transits from warehouse to warehouse. In order to cover certain unspecified losses, Trade Losses, General Leakage, etc., Excess has been fixed at 0.25% of the Bill of Lading (in short BL) quantity and the insurance premium as Rs. 0.03 on the sum Insured per Rs. 100 and the same is mentioned on the Policy Open Cover Certificate as well as in the MOU.
The Complainant is continuously taking this type of policy since similar previous claims had been duly considered and settled by the Insurance Company. After issuance of the insurance cover, whenever the Vessel carrying the cargo commences its voyage, it is the usual practice of the Company to intimate the 1st OP/Insurance Company to insure the Cargo/Vessel upon providing various particulars like BL, Quantity, Load Port, Discharge Port/Arrival Port, Final Destination, Invoice value, Currency Exchange Value, Commodity, Expected Date of Arrival etc. and, in this instance, the subject matter riz, 7999.888 Mt. of Palmolein purchased from Wilmar International P. Ltd. at Singapore and meant to be carried by vessel-GALAXY V.07/13 after its loading on 04.10.2013, was insured under the aforesaid MOC along with an MOU, after paying premium vide Marine Insurance Certificate No. 650200/21/13/4370000068. The BL for the aforesaid quantity was also certified by an internationally accredited surveyor at the Load Port.
It is the usual practice to give prior intimation about the arrival of the Vessel to the 1st OP with a request to arrange for a Surveyor to supervise the discharge operations for the reason that some imports may have shortage claims which phenomenon is well known to all the OPs, who had already fixed Policy Excess and Premium Rates. Due intimation in that regard was given to the Insurance Company on 10.10.2013, vide letter dated 09.10.2013, conveying that they had arranged for survey and simultaneously requesting the Insurance Company that their side Surveyor, who is holding an IRDA Certificate with A or B ranking, needs to be appointed. Further, the Survey Report shall have to be prepared/submitted within 72 hours. Whether or not the Insurance Company engages their Surveyor, the Insured usually deploys their own Surveyor to supervise the discharge operations till the imported item reaches its final destination and, in the event of joint survey, the joint survey report would be signed by the Surveyor
Mixed up figures – Commission was not in a position to issue any positive direction in favour of the Complainant based on mixed up figures that also embrace the consignment belonging to one another u....
(1) Adverse Claim – The law mandates that a party confronted with an adverse claim must voice its opposition; failure to do so results in a deemed acceptance of the allegations or facts asserted agai....
“In no case a Surveyor shall take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report.”
Timely and accurate declarations for consignments are critical in marine insurance policies; failure to comply can validate an insurer's repudiation of claims.
Insurance companies must provide substantial proof when denying claims; unjust repudiation leads to enforceable obligations to pay agreed amounts.
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.