STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/20/221 (Arisen out of order dated 14/11/2019 in Complaint No.599 of 2010 passed by the District Consumer Commission Mumbai Suburban)

Jeyenkay Petrogels Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Jeyenkay Petrogels)

Suite # 410, Kanara Business Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Off.Andheri Link Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai – 400 075.

....... Appellant(s)

Versus Oriental Insurance Companies Ltd., Borivali Divisional office, Shradha Shopping Centre, S.V. road, Borivali (West), ………Respondent(s)

Mumbai – 400 092.

BEFORE Justice S.P.Tavade – President Poonam V. Maharshi – Member For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Manish Gadre For the Respondent(s): Advocate Sapna Bhuptany

ORDER

(06/09/2024)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Tavade – President:

(1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban in Consumer Complaint No.599 of 2010 dated 02/1/2010 the original complainant preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be referred as per their original status in the complaint.

(2) Facts giving rise to file present appeal can be summarized as under:

(A) The complainant is private Limited Company. Complainant had approached the opponent on 11/07/2007 as it wanted to insure their consignment against all risks. The opponent advised the Complainant to take Marine Cargo Single Voyage Policy with a coverage of Institute cargo Clauses (A) i.e. ICC(A) for insuring their consignment from all perils. Accordingly the complainant paid the premium. In pursuance of the payment of premium the opponent issued policy bearing No.124300/21/2008/141 and told the complainant that it covers all risks and perils. It was contended that the opponent by mistake issued policy under name and style as “Institute bulk oil clauses” instead of “Institute Cargo Clauses (A)” though Complainant had paid premium for the said policy. The complainant contacted the opponent and pointed out the mistake. On 18/07/2007 the opponent rectified their mistake and issued Marine Cargo Single Voyage (C) Policy and the said endorsement was attached to the original policy. The endorsement was effective from 11/07/2007 to midnight of 10/07/2008. It is contended that the complainant had requested the opponent to extend the policy cover for additional sum and accordingly paid additional premium thereon. The opponent agreed for the same and granted additional cover w.e.f.

09/08/2007.

(B) It was the case of complainant that Vessel MT-HarVi expressed guarantee insured consignment i.e. 1050.000 MT of base oil SN 500 arrived at Mumbai floating light at 18.36 hours on 13/09/2007. The said vessel was shifted to B-2 anchorage Mumbai at 19.10 hours on 14/09/2007. The consignment was pumped from vessel with the aid of their own pump through manifold receivers flexible hose. During the process progressive delivery cargo DB Koel into road tank cars, the consignment got contaminated. It was contended that the complainant wrote letter dated 21/09/2007 and requested opponent to appoint surveyor for assessing the loss. Accordingly, M/s.Transocean Marine and General Survey Agencies were appointed to conduct preliminary survey. The said surveyor carried out the survey and submitted report on 27/09/2007. It was contended that the surveyor had confirmed that consignment was contaminated due to sudden heavy down pour resulting into penetration of rain water in verge tank. It was contended that the surveyor had exceeded their authority by opining that the claim was not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy. It was observed by the surveyor that the rain water contamination was not covered under the policy and accordingly, the said fact was informed to the complainant. It was contended that the opponent without applying their mind and without going through the policy endorsements informed the complainant that the consignment was damaged due to penetration of water and the rain wate