STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 52 of 2024 Date of Institution : 05.02.2024 Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Mahesh Chand, Aged about 45 years, R/o H.No.266, Phase-1, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, U.T., Chandigarh …Appellant/Complainant VERSUS

1] Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Plot No.2B and 2C, 3rd floor, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through authorized officer.

2] Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited registered office: Iffco Sadan C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017 through authorized officer ….Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Sunil Kumar Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Bhavesh Ola, Advocate for the respondents PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh.

Rajesh Kumar (appellant herein) seeking enhancement in the relief awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') while partly allowing his Consumer Complaint No.376 of 2020 as under:-

“9. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

i) to pay Rs.67128/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the instant complaint till onwards.

ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2] The case of the appellant/complainant before the District Commission was that he purchased a Marine Cargo Open Policy from the respondents/opposite parties for the period 4.8.2017 to 3.8.2018 for a consideration of ₹11,801/-, insuring goods up to ₹10,000,000/-. On 8.9.2017, a consignment of 700 apple boxes worth ₹9,00,000/- was dispatched from Narkanda to Raurkela but on 13.9.2017, the vehicle met with an accident causing damage to the apples. Though the accident was reported and survey arranged, due to delay in the surveyor’s arrival, 546 boxes were transshipped and sold on the insurer’s advice, leaving only 154 boxes at the spot. The appellant/complainant sold apples for ₹4,62,400/- and submitted bills of ₹3,40,408/-, thereby suffering a loss of ₹5,60,000/-, which was claimed on 18.9.2017; however, the respondents/opposite parties admitted only ₹60,572/- on 15.11.2017 leading to filing of a consumer complaint by the appellant/complainant before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

3] On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties contested the complaint before the District Commission by filing their written reply stating that on intimation of loss, a surveyor was immediately deputed who reached the spot on 13.9.2017 and conducted the survey. It was denied that on the advice of opposite parties No.5 & 6, boxes were transshipped to a nearby mandi, asserting instead that these boxes were delivered at the original destination at Rourkela in safe condition as per joint inspection report dated 18.9.2017 and that the surveyor was not given an opportunity to inspect them. It was further denied that any information regarding transshipment was given to the opposite parties and since only 154 boxes were available for inspection, the surveyor found 54 boxes intact and 100 damaged to the extent of 60%, assessing the loss at ₹60,572/-. Rest of the averments/allegations were denied by the opposite parties.

4] The appellant/complainant fi