Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 472
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J
M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Respondent
CONSUMER CASE NO. 266 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Malhotra
Insurance claims must be honored based on factual assessments of loss, regardless of any restrictive clauses in the policy, ensuring consumer protection rights in commercial transactions.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Contract of Insurance - Insurance policy was secured for risk coverage of consignment of machinery - Claim for damages due to water logging during customs clearance was upheld, assessing the loss at Rs.16,65,95,843.74 with 9% interest from 01.01.2009 till payment, alongside costs for mental agony. (Paras 8, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction - Definition of Consumer - The complainant, despite being a commercial entity, availed of insurance for personal use, making the complaint maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 8, 14)
(C) Policy Terms - Clause regarding limit per transit was found repugnant to the overall insurance agreement, thus void; the insurer was not entitled to limit claims on such basis. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Insured claimed compensation of damages under an Insurance Policy after machinery was damaged due to flooding during customs clearance. The claim was initially reduced by the Insurer, which led to the filing of a complaint alleging deficiency of service.
Findings of Court:
The court rejected the insurers' grounds for reducing claims and held the client entitled to damages assessed by the Joint Surveyor, emphasizing mutual obligations in insurance contracts.
Issues: The primary issues involved the consumer definition under the Act, the validity of claim deductions by the Insurer, and the correctness of reported damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that claims cannot be unjustly limited by the Insurer based on their interpretation of clauses. Furthermore, all individuals engaging in personal transactions are entitled to consumer protections.
Result: Complaint allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Thakur, counsel for the complainant and Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, counsel for the opposite parties.
2. Suzuki Powertrain India Limited (now merged with Maruti Suzuki India Limited) (the complainant) (hereinafter referred to as the Insured) filed the present complaint, for directing National Insurance Company Limited and others (the Insurer) to pay to the Insured (i) the claim of Rs.25,83,33,948/- under the Insurance Policy, (ii) interest @ 18% per annum from June, 2008 till actual date of payment, (iii) Rs. 50 lakhs as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) Rs. 50 lakhs as the damages for loss of business and (v) such other or further order as this Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint are as follows:-
(a) Suzuki Powertrain India Limited was a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Insured placed various purchase orders to the vendors in Japan, for purchasing capital equipment (machinery) and accessories. After purchasing equipment (machinery) and accessories, these goods were securely packed in 31 consignments and dispatched through vessel “M.V. Nagato” Ocean Voyage No. 051 from Yokohama and Kobe Seaport in Japan against separate Bills of Lading to Kandla Seaport Gujarat, India in May, 2008. The Insured obtained Marine Cargo Open Declaration Policy No. 361401/21/08/4200000013, of the aforesaid securely packed in 31 consignments, effective from 11.04.2008 to midnight of 10.04.2009, covering risk of Institute Cargo Clause (A), including war and Strike Riot & Civil Commotion Clause, from anywhere in the world to Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Total sum assured was Rs.4,47,00,34,858/-, on which total premium of Rs.8,94,007/- + Service tax of Rs.1,10,499/- total Rs.10,04,507/- was charged. Limit per transit was Rs.60 crores.
(b) The said vessel safely arrived and docked at Kandla Port on 08.06.2008, where the consignments were unloaded on 10.06.2008. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., (the Marine Cargo Surveyor) attended the said vessel at the request of M/s. NYK Line (India) Limited, Mumbai and through their Report dated 11.06.2008 confirmed that the consignments were discharged in sound condition. While the consignments were stored at Kandla Port for custom clearance, there was heavy rainfall in and around Kandla Port on 13th and 14th June, 2008, which resulted heavy water logging at Kandla Port. As a result, various packages submerged in the water, up to varying heights, depending upon their position of location at the place of storage, due to which, water entered inside the packages and extensively damaged the machineries and accessories.
(c) The fact of water logging, submerging of the packages and damage to the consignments was promptly reported to M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, who deputed M/s. Shiv Shipping Services, Clearing & Forwarding Agent, Kutch to survey and report, who after survey, submitted report dated 14.06.2008 that due to heavy rain from midnight of 13/14.06.2008, the packages of machineries and accessories were submerged into water. In turn M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai submitted his report dated 16.06.2008, in the same term.
(d) After subside from the water, the Insured’s clearing & handling agent M/s. R.S. Arunachalam arranged the requisite custom clearance and dispatched the consignments from Kandla Port to Manesar from 17.06.2008 onward by road, which were unloaded at Manesar from 20.06.2008 onward. Thereafter, the Insured informed the Insurer regarding damage of the consignments. Insured also submitted his claim on 02.07.2008, before the Insurer.
(e) The Insurer appointed M/s. Adarsh Associates, New Delhi & Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, the Joint Surveyors to survey and assess the loss. After survey, they submitted their report dated 13.01.2010, assessing loss of Rs.16,65,95,
