Page 1 of 12

Nishita

C.C.-106-2018

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

GUJARAT STATE AHMEDABAD.

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,

Details

DD MM

YY

Date of disposal 25

11

2022

Date of filing

05

07

2018

Duration

20

04

04

Page 2 of 12

Nishita

C.C.-106-2018

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

Page 3 of 12

Nishita

C.C.-106-2018

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document