Per Mr.Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member

          This is a consumer complaint u/s.12 r/w.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [‘CP Act’ in brief]

[1]     Complainant is holder of marine policy and therefore ‘consumer’ whereas; opponent is insurance company which provided a cover under contract of indemnity and therefore is a service provider within the meaning of CP Act.

[2]     Complainant is a company dealing with import-export manufacturing of transformer core lines/lamination steel coils having factory at Silvassa and Palghar.

          Opponent is in business of general insurance.

[3]     Upon payment of premium of Rs.6,886.50 ps., the complainant drawn marine cargo import specific policy for the cargo i.e.CRGO electrical steel coils weighing 44.00 MT for voyage from any US port to Nhava-Sheva and Thence to final destination for sum of Rs.94,38,500/-, covering all risk. 

[4]     The consignment weighing 37.017 MT was imported it was loaded on vessel. The vessel left port of Norfolk US.  It arrived at Nhava-Sheva, India.  The consignment was unloaded.  The same was entrusted to Maateshwary Transport, Mumbai the inland transporters.  The transporter issued GC on 25/07/2006.  The consignment was carried in truck no.MH-06-AC-2732. 

[5]     The truck met with an accident at Modgaon, Udhava, Talasary.  The accident was reported to Kasa Police Station.  Police prepared Panchnamas.  The complainant informed the opponent by a letter dated 28/07/2006.  The opponent appointed surveyor and made a report.  Complainant lodged a claim.  Opponent repudiated the claim.  The damage was accidental still the opponent repudiated the claim on irrelevant grounds.  The act of the opponent is in violation of the Act and is an attempt to shirk the liability.  The rejection of the claim is unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.  Complainant suffered loss of Rs.78,75,701/- and claimed compensation to make the loss good in view of contract of indemnity. 

The complainant relies upon the insurance policy [Exh.B], police papers and panchmana [Exh-D], letter of intimation [Exh-E], also produced letter of repudiation on record and the affidavit of evidence.

[6]     The opponent filed written version dated 25/07/2007 to deny the liability.  It is submitted that as per the term covered by clause 4.3 in the agreement.  The contract was rightfully repudiated.  The loss, damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing or preparation of the subject matter insured is excluded.  The liability limited to 75% in case of loss due to private carrier, there is a liability on the bailees and the third party whereby the insured requires to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimizing the loss.  It is submitted that as per the relevant marine insurance policy.  The unsuitability of packing includes stowage.  Moreover, the carrying capacity was 23.6 MT as against this weight of consignment was carried 36.76 MT.  And on such other grounds, the opponent justified the repudiation of the claim. 

          Opponent relied on relevant papers such as goods carriage permit of the vehicle Exh.II, the survey report and assessment of loss by surveyor at Exh.III.

[7]     In the background of this fact, we have heard arguments of learned Adv.Bhakti Barve for the complainant and learned advocate