ORDER

HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 16.04.2015 in C. C. No. 24 of 2013 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.

The Appellant herein, M/s Shree Ram Industries, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant Firm’.

The Respondent No. 1 herein, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.

The Respondents No. 2 and No. 3 herein, Shri Pawan Bhagwani and Shri Shayam Chhabra, were the Opposite Parties No. 2 and No. 3 before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Surveyors’.

The Respondent No. 4 herein, Proprietor, Diamond Roadlines, was the Opposite Party No. 4 before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Transport Firm’.

2.       Vide Order dated 09.10.2020 the Transport Firm was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

3.       Heard arguments from Mr. B. S. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Complainant Firm and Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. and its Surveyors.

Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 16.04.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal. 

4.       Admitted facts are that a Marine Cargo Open Cover Insurance Policy was taken by the Complainant Firm. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. The insured consignment (mainly super temp. inserts, and some other parts) was shipped by sea, then, during surface transportation by truck to the factory site, it was damaged due to heavy rain. The Complainant Firm claimed loss of Rs. 43,32,988/-. The Survey Report furnished by the Surveyors appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed the loss at Rs. 13,63,117/-. The Insurance Co. offered Rs. 9,82,134/- i.e. 75% of the assessed loss on ‘non standard’ basis, on ground that the consignment was not properly protected. The Complainant Firm filed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 16.04.2015 allowed the Complaint in part and ordered the Insurance Co. to pay the loss assessed in the Survey Report i.e. Rs. 13,63,117/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the Complaint i.e. 21.10.2013 till realisation and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 7,000/- as cost of litigation. The Complainant Firm appealed before this Commission.

5.       The State Commission has principally relied on