Timely and accurate declarations for consignments are critical in marine insurance policies; failure to comply can validate an insurer's repudiation of claims.

JUDGEMENT

PER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. Burzin Somandy, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Parveen Kumar Mehdiratta, Advocate, for Opposite Party.

2. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ultratech Cement Limited (hereinafter referred as the Complainant) against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the Opposite Party), alleging deficiency in service, gross negligence, inordinate delay, misinterpretation of policy terms, unfair trade practice and wrongful repudiation of a genuine insurance claim of Rs.6,53,45,305/- under a Marine Open Cover Insurance Policy. The insurance policy in question was originally taken by the Cement Division of Grasim Industries Ltd. in 2010. Subsequently, pursuant to . schemes of arrangement approved by the Hon’ble High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Bombay, the Cement Division vested in and was amalgamated with the Complainant. The Complainant submits that for the purpose of its cement manufacturing operations, it intended to purchase and import a Planetary Gear Box for its cement mill. Accordingly, it approached M/s MAAG Gear AG, Switzerland, and after negotiations, placed a purchase order dated 19.08.2005 bearing No. BOM/DC/MBD/IMP/P.O. No. 244/05-06 for supply of one Planetary Gear Box for a total value of CHF 12,50,000. One of the conditions of the purchase order required the Complainant to arrange transit insurance in its own name (Annexure A). In compliance with the said condition, the Complainant procured a Marine Open Cover Insurance Policy dated 01.07.2006, bearing Cover No. 121200/21/06/00006, from the Opposite Party for the period 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007, after payment of requisite premium. Under the said policy, the Complainant was insured against damage to dispatches containing mechanical, electrical, electronic, fragile items, refractories, castables, and oil lubricants. The policy was initially issued with a sum insured of ?50 crores, with a per-bottom limit of ?2 crores, which was subsequently enhanced to ?25 crores by endorsement dated 03.10.2006 at the request of the Complainant (Annexure B). Pursuant to the purchase order, the Planetary Gear Box (hereinafter referred to as “the consignment”) was shipped by the foreign supplier. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the dispatch of the consignment, and the Opposite Party issued an Insurance Certificate bearing No. 121200/21/06/1070000136. The consignment reached Chennai Port in 03.10.2006 (Annexures C and D). On 10.10.2006, while the consignment was being unloaded from the ship and loaded onto a trailer at the Chennai Port, it met with an accident, resulting in severe damage to the equipment. The transporters, M/s Union Roadways Ltd., informed the Complainant of the accident by letter dated 11.10.2006. The Complainant immediately intimated the Opposite Party about the accident in accordance with the policy conditions. Upon intimation of the loss, the Opposite Party appointed M/s Comtec Surveyors, Chennai, to assess the damage. A preliminary survey was conducted at the Chennai Port, and an interim report was submitted. Since the extent of damage could not be fully ascertained at the port, the consignment was sent back to the consignor in Switzerland for detailed inspection. After inspection, the foreign supplier informed the Complainant that the equipment was severely damaged, that repair costs would be approximately 70% of the equipment value, and that even after repairs, no performance guarantee or warranty could be provided. In view of this, the Complainant treated the equipment as a total loss for practical purposes. The Complainant submitted a det