COURT NO: 04 COMPLAIN NO.106 OF 2018

1. Prachem Laboratories A Registered Partnership Firm Through Partner Mr. Pravinbhai Naranbhai Patel Age: 46 years, Male, Hindu, Occ. Business Address: Plot No.3109, Phase-3, GIDC, Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar ....... Complainant Vs.

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd F-12, 1st Floor, Rajendra Estate, Opp; Gayatri Mandir, Near Modhera Char Rasta, Mehsana-384 002 .......Opponent BEFORE: DR. J. G. MECWAN, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARANCE: Ld.Adv. Mr. R.V.Sakaria for the Complainant Ld.Adv. Mr. R. P. Raval for the Opponent ORDER BY DR. J. G. MECWAN,PRESIDING MEMBER

JUDGMENT

1. Factual Matrix :

1.1 It is the case of the complainant that he has obtained Marine- Inland Transit All Risk Open declaration policy bearing No. 22040306, for the period 20.04.2016 to 19.04.2017 covering all risk of Inland Transit from Insured’s Premises in Chhatral to Anywhere in India and as per declaration clause client was to declare the consignment on monthly basis latest by 10th of every succeeding month. A consignment covered under All Risk Open declaration policy sustained damage due to operation of insured peril and complainant has paid Rs.1,71,751 / - to opponent as premium of the policy.

1.2 It is the submission of the complainant that the consignment so damaged was covered under Marine-Inland Transit All Risk Open declaration policy bearing No. 22040306, for the period 20.04.2016 to 19.04.2017. Therefore, the complainant had informed opponent about the event of skilful pilferage on 10.03.2017 and subsequently the opponent had appointed surveyor M/s. Active Claims Consultants as confirmed by opponent vide his email dated 11.03.2017.

1.3 It is the further submission of the complainant that the complainant had sent the documents vide his letter dated 08.09.2017 which was acknowledged by the opponent’s claim management office at Baroda but despite of submitting all the papers and documents as demanded by the surveyor appointed by the opponent as well as the opponent, the complainant states that his claim is not paid even after 10^th long months of happening of loss despite all compliances made by the complainant and at last the opponent has sent a letter dated 02.11.2017 whereby repudiating his liability on below mentioned grounds;

"The policy is incorporated with the following warranty and exclusion Warranty: Unexplained shortage is not covered Exclusion: Shortage from sound packages"

1.4 It is the case of the complaint that the complainant reiterates that the damage to the cargo has occurred due to insured perils during the course of transit from Chhatral to Roorkee. The complainant does not agree reasons for repudiating his liability.

1.5 It is the submission of the complainant that the complainant has constantly, consistently and frequently demanded from opponent’s office for payment of his claim amount of Rs. 27,01,244/- However, to the complainant’s surprise he received a letter dated 02.11.2017 whereby opponent has repudiated the claim by assigning false, fabricated, unwarranted, illegal, unjust and whimsical reasons.

1.6 It is the case of the complainant that at last the complainant sent his legal notice through his Advocate on 08.03.2018 protesting the grounds and reasons and demanded claim amount, the legal notice is delivered to the opponent and in reply the opponent has stated that his stand remains as per his letter dated 02.11.2017.

1.7 It is the submission of the complainant that the complainant has lost too much time making correspondence with the opposite party now to get justice filed consumer complaint before Hon’ble state Commission with following prayers .

It is further submitted prayed by the complaint that the complaint be kindly allowed, the opponent be directed to pay:

[a] To get Rs. 27,01,244/- with cost and inter