Insurance coverage extends to risks during unloading as part of ordinary transit, rejecting 'constructive delivery' claims.

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties in the settlement of an insurance claim.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the complainant, are that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of drugs and pharmaceuticals products at its plant located near Indore. The complainant purchased a Form Fill and Seal (FFS) machine worth Rs. 32.32 crores from M/s Anitas Exports Limited at Village Bhud, Baddi, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. A Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy was obtained with effect from 26.6.2010 against a premium of Rs. 1,42,418 for a total insured sum of Rs. 32.32 crores for transportation by road. The operation of the policy was from the time the consignment left the warehouse (commencement of transit) and continued during the ordinary course of transit including customary transhipment, until delivery to the final warehouse of the destination named in the policy, until expiry of 7 days after the arrival of the vehicle at the destination town which ever was earlier. It is stated by the complainant that the truck carrying of the FFS reached the factory site on 2.7.2010 at 4.45 am and was taken inside the factory complex at 6.00 am. The unloading was done at 3.00 pm by a crane of M/s N B Crane Services (Crane No. GJ - 10“D - 0625). Around 3.30 pm, during unloading, the machine was damaged due to the movement of the truck. Opposite party No. 1 was informed immediately at 3.40 pm. Around 5.10 pm a representative of opposite party No. 1 along with surveyor undertook preliminary survey and recorded statements. Documents sought were handed over on 3.7.2010. A final surveyor was appointed by the opposite party on 9.7.2010 from Mumbai who visited the site on 10.7.2010. The complainant alleges that on account of the lethargic approach of the opposite party, the sophisticated machine could not be removed or taken for repairs, if any, and therefore, it issued a legal notice on 13.7.2010 which was replied to. The Surveyor of the opposite party, M/s Alok Shankar and Company, Mumbai, submitted a report dated 5.7.2011 admitting loss on account of carelessness and negligence on the party of the carrier / crane operator and held the transporter / crane operator responsible for the loss which was assessed at Rs. 3,92,31,000 after deducting Rs. 1,30,77,000 towards the difference in cost / profit margin of about 25% of the gross assessed loss of Rs. 5,23,08,000 after deducting Rs. 10,00,000 towards salvage. The complainants made several efforts with opposite party No. 1 to settle the claim. They also filed a Writ Petition No. 6252 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore (which was dismissed as withdrawn).

3. Complainant impugns the rejection letter dated 30.3.2012 issued by opposite party No. 1 as being arbitrary and not being based on the surveyor's report. It is submitted that the surveyor has recommended a net loss of Rs. 3,92,31,000 after various deductions without any mention that the accident occurred before termination of the contractual transit period. It is stated that the ground of rejection is contrary to the findings of the final report which states that:

4. Loss / damage to the consignment is attributing to the carelessness / misconduct / negligence on the part of the carrier / crane operator. Transports / crane operator is responsible to make good the los