M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.1845 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 21.10.2016 passed in Case.No.11/2014 by District Commission, Neemuch)

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, KAMAL CHOWK, TAGORE MARG, NEEMUCH. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. M/S JAI MATA TRADERS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR -

VIJAY KUMAR HOTWANI, B/11-12 MANDI PRANGAN, NEEMUCH.

2. NEW U.P.BENGAL ROADLINES, COMMISSION AGENT & TRANSPORTER, NEAR H.P. PETROL PUMP, MAIN ROAD, CHANDERIYA, CHITTORGARH (RAJASTHAN). .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri M.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vishnu Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

None present for respondent no.2.

O R D E R (Passed on .03.2026)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1 /

appellant - The New India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) directed against the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Neemuch (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no. 11/2014, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint and has directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay to the complainant Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of claim filing i.e. 26.02.2014, till payment within one month from the date of the order. In addition, compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively is also directed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.

2. The case of the complainant / respondent no.1 is such that the complainant carries on a business of garlic in Neemuch and had obtained a Transit Insurance Policy bearing no.45110321110200000017 from the Insurance Company. It is submitted that on 31.05.2012, 160 quintals of garlic was dispatched from Neemuch to Mumbai, but it failed to reach its destination. Consequently, police report was lodged and the Insurance Company was duly informed. It is alleged that the Insurance Company despite fulfillment of all procedural requirements and repeated reminders, failed to pay the claim.

Therefore alleging deficiency in service the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commission sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Marine Cargo Open Policy by failing to submit mandatory declaration regarding the dispatched goods. Furthermore, the Insurance Company alleged that the police report was lodged after 12 days and the claim was also not filed within the prescribed period. It is stated that the final police report was obtained in collusion with the authorities, hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

4. The opposite party no.2 remained ex-parte before the District Commission and has filed no reply.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the District Commission has failed to observe the facts on record that confirm breach of policy terms due to delayed intimation of the Declaration Form and also regarding the loss. He further argued that the Declaration Form no.2899 though prepared on 31.05.2012, was not submitted until nearly a month later, on 26.06.2012, and thus violating the policy requirement for immediate disclosure at the time of dispatch. He stated that the claim was rightly denied because the loss resulted from a Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 407 I.P.C.) rather than theft, a risk not covered under the policy’s general conditions. He thus contented the District Commission ignored evidence showing that the complainant failed to provide immediate notice of the loss and that no formal theft claim was ever lodged. Therefore, there was no deficiency in se