Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Claims often rejected/upheld for exclusions like unloading/crane ops or unproven vehicle accident, making crane operator/transporter primary remedy; if policy covers (transit accident, proper packing), approach District/NCDRC for deficiency in service—success depends on policy terms, surveyor/police evidence ["Parenteral Drugs (India) Limited VS United India Insurance Company Limited - Consumer"] ["Facets Polishing Works VS United India Insurance - Consumer"] ["M/s PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LIMITED vs M/s UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. - Consumer National"] ["M/s PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LIMITED vs M/s UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. - Consumer National"].
Imagine this: Your partnership firm secures a Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy to protect goods during transit. The vehicle transporting them meets with an accident, damaging the cargo. You file a claim, only for the assurance company to reject it. What now? The partnership firm obtain the Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy. The vehicle met with an accident. in that accident goods are damage. assurance company rejected the claim. what is the remedy? This common query highlights a complex area of marine insurance law in India.
This post explores potential remedies, drawing from legal precedents and policy terms. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policies cover risks during a defined voyage, typically from loading to discharge, often including warehouse-to-warehouse extensions if specified. Coverage applies to enumerated perils like stranding, fire, collision, or non-delivery under clauses such as Institute Cargo Clauses (ICC). However, these policies terminate upon abandonment or non-commencement of the voyage and exclude losses from vessel unseaworthiness or master's fault unless proven otherwise. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented by its Deputy General Manager Mr. Ajith Kumar VS Acme Commodities Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its General Manager (Administration & Commercial) V. Sriraman - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2155
For instance, insurable interest as consignee ends once cargo is loaded on the vessel. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023) In accidents like grounding or engine breakdown, coverage hinges on perils of the sea, defined as fortuitous seawater ingress or stranding, not ordinary wear or negligence. Canada Rice Mills Ltd. VS Union Marine and General Insurance Co. Ltd. - 1940 0 Supreme(SC) 48The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , carrying on business at Steel Grete House, Bombay VS The Metal Box Co. , of India Ltd. , by its Principal Officer S. Devarajan, Madras and another - 1976 0 Supreme(Mad) 171 Standard Free of Particular Average (FPA) policies require proof of maritime loss; mere accidents without sea perils do not suffice. Bihar Supply Syndicate: United Salt Works And Industries LTD. VS Asiatic Navigation: National Insurance Company LTD. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 240New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hira Lal Ramesh Chand - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 979
All-risks extensions like ICC(A) broaden coverage to theft, pilferage, or non-delivery, but standard FPA voyage policies demand evidence of sea perils. In one case, the absence of loss due to perils of the sea, the Insurance Company was not liable. Bihar Supply Syndicate: United Salt Works And Industries LTD. VS Asiatic Navigation: National Insurance Company LTD. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Insurers often reject claims on several grounds:
The burden is on the insured to prove good condition at shipment, accident details, and loss attribution to covered perils. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove as a fact that the cargo was lost due to the perils of the sea. Bihar Supply Syndicate: United Salt Works And Industries LTD. VS Asiatic Navigation: National Insurance Company LTD. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Other sources echo this: In a tanker accident, non-declaration of consignments breached the open policy, rendering it uninsured. Suppression of the material facts; or under declaring the monthly transits undertaken is a clear case of breach of the conditions of the policy. National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS A. S. Moosani
The main recourse for a partnership firm is a civil suit against the insurer for indemnity. Courts frame issues on jurisdiction, seaworthiness, policy validity, and claim entitlement. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented by its Deputy General Manager Mr. Ajith Kumar VS Acme Commodities Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its General Manager (Administration & Commercial) V. Sriraman - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2155 Success requires evidence like Bill of Lading, policy copies, survey reports, vessel logs, and proof of maritime peril.
Civil suits allow detailed proof via surveys and causation analysis. For example, in non-delivery cases under voyage policies, suits address constructive loss if perils apply. Peacock Plywood Pvt. LTD. VS Oriental Insurance Co. LTD. - 2006 9 Supreme 895 File within the 3-year limitation from repudiation, in the competent court (e.g., policy issuance or loss location).
Plead specific clauses (e.g., ICC(A) for all risks) and counter exclusions. Seek subrogation rights to pursue carriers. Credit recoveries like salvage against indemnity. Peacock Plywood Pvt. LTD. VS Oriental Insurance Co. LTD. - 2006 9 Supreme 895
Consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act often fail for marine voyage policies due to complexity, policy interpretation, causation, non-joinder of carriers/vessel owners, or post-loss insurable interest loss. Consumer complaints may not be maintainable if complex factual issues like policy interpretation or causation are involved. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023)NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS B. N. SAINANI - 1997 6 Supreme 338
Courts have dismissed such complaints: Complaint disallowed... Repudiation of claim by Opposite Party is based on valid reasons. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023) Complaint filed held not maintainable. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS B. N. SAINANI - 1997 6 Supreme 338
In one NCDRC case, delivery under the policy was disputed, favoring insurer analysis over summary forums. M/s PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LIMITED vs M/s UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 583 Another involved failure to obtain Mercantile Marine approval, breaching warranty. M/S. KESHVLAL NARANJI vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Related vehicle insurance cases highlight surveyor assessments and policy limits, but marine cargo demands peril-specific proof. In a truck accident post-marine policy, claims settled per survey but disputed extras. United India Insurance Company Limited VS C. Ramanjaneyula Reddy
To strengthen your position:
Rejected marine cargo claims under Specific Voyage Policies typically require civil suits over consumer forums, hinging on proving covered perils and rebutting exclusions like unseaworthiness. Cases affirm insurers' rights when breaches occur, but strong evidence can secure indemnity. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023)Bihar Supply Syndicate: United Salt Works And Industries LTD. VS Asiatic Navigation: National Insurance Company LTD. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 240
Key Takeaways:- Prove maritime perils and compliance.- Opt for civil courts for complex disputes.- Document everything meticulously.
Stay proactive in transit insurance—proper policies and records are your best defense. For tailored advice, contact a marine law expert.
References:1. Dynametic Overseas Private Limited VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2023): Voyage policy exclusions, consumer complaint dismissal.2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented by its Deputy General Manager Mr. Ajith Kumar VS Acme Commodities Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its General Manager (Administration & Commercial) V. Sriraman - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2155: Unseaworthiness repudiation, suit issues.3. Bihar Supply Syndicate: United Salt Works And Industries LTD. VS Asiatic Navigation: National Insurance Company LTD. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 240: FPA sea perils burden.4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hira Lal Ramesh Chand - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 979: ICC(A) coverage contrast.5. Peacock Plywood Pvt. LTD. VS Oriental Insurance Co. LTD. - 2006 9 Supreme 895: Constructive loss remedies.
#MarineCargoInsurance, #InsuranceClaimRemedy, #VoyagePolicy
The moot issue in this matter is whether the consignment covered under the Marine Caro Specific Voyage Policy had been delivered to the complainant under the terms of the policy. ... In view of the foregoing, delivery under the Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy at the destination cannot be stated to have been done. ... A Marine Cargo Specific Voyage ....
The moot issue in this matter is whether the consignment covered under the Marine Caro Specific Voyage Policy had been delivered to the complainant under the terms of the policy. ... In view of the foregoing, delivery under the Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy at the destination cannot be stated to have been done. ... A Marine Cargo Specific Voyage #HL_STA....
The moot issue in this matter is whether the consignment covered under the Marine Caro Specific Voyage Policy had been delivered to the complainant under the terms of the policy. ... In view of the foregoing, delivery under the Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy at the destination cannot be stated to have been done. ... A Marine Cargo Specific Voyage ....
Finally in the first week of November, 1998 the Complainant No.2 personally met Mr.Chakravarty, Divisinal Manager of the Opposite Party Company, who orally informed him that insurance claim has been rejected and formal letter would be issued within a week. ... Complainant failed to obtain this approval from Mercantile Marine Department and this breach of warranty entitles Insurance Company to avoid the contract of insurance and therefore, on valid ground they had r....
The invoice terms also indicated that the insurance arrangement was made by the supplier on FOB basis, and therefore, according to the Opposite Party, the consignment did not fall within the scope of the Marine Open Cover Policy and ought to have been covered under a separate specific voyage policy, ... On 10.10.2006, while the consignment was being unloaded from the ship and loaded onto a trailer at the Chennai Port, it met with an accident, resulting in severe #HL_....
Bottega Indiana B-34, Sector-64 Noida-201301 Re: Claim under Policy No.- 272500/21/2018/114 & 272500/21/2018/115 under Marine Single Voyage of A/c-M/S Bottega Indiana With regard to the above please be ... So, It is clear from this statement that there was no accident of truck it was standing there in sound condition and later on put on fire. Claim of insured as well as driver that truck met with accident and then caught fire is not corre....
[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 ... [5] The truck met with an accident at Modgaon, Udhava, Talasary. The accident was reported to Kasa Police Station. Police prepared Panchnamas. The complainant inf....
The Complainant/Appellant is a Company dealing with Import-Export, manufacturing of Transformer Core Lines/Lamination steel coils since 1991. It has a factory unit at Silvassa and Palghar. The case of the Complainant/Appellant is that they took a Marine Cargo Import Specific Policy No. ... It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that clause 4.3 of the Insurance Policy provided that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay the claim amount in case there....
The Complainant/Appellant is a Company dealing with Import-Export, manufacturing of Transformer Core Lines/Lamination steel coils since 1991. It has a factory unit at Silvassa and Palghar. The case of the Complainant/Appellant is that they took a Marine Cargo Import Specific Policy No. ... It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that clause 4.3 of the Insurance Policy provided that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay the claim amount in case there....
Thereafter the complainant made Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy the said Round Drip Irrigation Pipe Plant Machinery with the opponent company. 15. Thereafter Shri Ankur A. ... Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy, 3. Mr. Pranav Kumar, Marine Survey reported Dt. 09.05.2014, 4. Mr. Prananv Kumar, Assessment of Loss Dt. 07.08.2014., 5. Notice reply of claimant notice by opponent advocate dtd. 03.09.2014, 6. Inland ....
The said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch-I, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. The said vehicle met with an accident for which he lodged a claim with the New India Assurance Company Limited. The surveyor of the Company also submitted his report for settlement of the claim but his claim for the loss worth of Rs.2000/- was not paid by the Company for the last six months. When he met Prakash Prasad Sinha, claim in-charge of the said Company, he demanded graft of Rs.400/- in lieu of payment of the claim amount to the complainant. When he met Pra....
2. The vehicle of the respondent bearing registration No. AP 4 TT : 4568, which is a diesel tanker was covered by personal insurance policy valid from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015. It is not in dispute that the respondent is entitled to claim the insurance amount under the policy. The appellants appointed an insurance surveyor and obtained assessment of damage at Rs. 43,600. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2015 and sustained damage when the policy was in force.
During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in substantial damage. The complainant was advised to get the vehicle repaired.
The claim preferred by the complainant for the vehicle which met with an accident on 06.09.2005 cannot be entertained as the sum insured had already been exhausted thus invalidating the marine cargo open policy no. Therefore suppression of the material facts; or under declaring the monthly transits undertaken is a clear case of breach of the conditions of the policy. In such circumstances the said vehicle is rendered uninsured and the complainant is not entitled for any claim.
According to the complainant, she incurred expenses of Rs.2,81,119/- for the repair of the vehicle but her insurance claim was not settled. The vehicle met with an accident and sustained damage. The said vehicle met with an accident resulting in damage. On being informed, the petitioner/OP appointed a surveyor who confirmed the damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident. According to the petitioner/OP on the basis of survey report, the insurance claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.50,000/- for which a cheque was issued to the complainant afte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
