BRIJ KISHORE TOSHNIWAL vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

THIS complaint has been filed by Brij Kishore Toshniwal claiming a total sum of Rs. 6,83,542/- from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. whose Divisional Manager, Br. Manager, Regional Manager and Manager have been impleaded as opposite parties in the complaint.

COMPLAINANT''s case is that he had sent on 30.10.91 precious stones by registered post parcel No: 969 from Jaipur to Paris (France). By another registered post parcel No. 970 dated. 30.10.91 the complainant had sent precious stones from Jaipur to New York. The complainant contacted opposite party No. 2 to get insured both the registered post parcels. The opposite party No. 2 perused the postal receipts of both the registered parcels, their invoices and other documents and then issued insurance policies in respect of the two parels. Policy No. 241107/21/ 92/01130-Co11 No. 02771 dated 31.10.91 was issued with respect to the parcel sent to New York. The insured amount of the said parcel was mentioned as Rs. 3,30,000/-. Another Policy No. 241107/21/92/00129-Co11 No. 02770 was issued to Paris (France). The sum insured was mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant has alleged that in the two insurance policies issued by opposite party No. 2 the number of the registered post parcel were wrongly typed inasmuch as with respect to the parcel sent to New York, the postal receipt number was typed as 670 instead of 970. In relation to the parcel sent to Paris (France), the number of the post parcel receipt was typed as 669 instead of 969 in the insurance policy. Apart from that in the insurance policy of the parcel sent to New York, the sum assured was mentioned as Rs. 3,30,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00.000/- and in the policy of the parcel sent to France, the sum assured was mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 3,30,000/-. The complainant alleges that when he came to know of the above mistakes, he went to the office of opposite party No. 2 and told him of the mistake. It is stated that opposite party No. 2 assured that the mistake would be corrected, but the same was not corrected. The complainant sent a letter to opposite party No. 1 in this regard on 3.11.93.

The complainant''s case further is that the precious stones sent to Paris (France) under registered post parcel No. 969 was received back by the complainant and there is no dispute regarding that. However, the registered post parcel which was sent to New York under post parcel receipt No. 970 were neither received back and nor were received at New York by the addressee. The complainant informed the Addl. Superintendent Post Office, Jaipur city in this respect on 10.2.92. Lot of correspondence took place with the postal authorities and they admitted that precious stones sent under post parcel receipt No. 970 had not been delivered. However, the Insurance Co. has not settled the claim of the complainant and they repudiated the claim on 21.12.93. The complainant has, therefore, claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as the value of the goods sent to New York, Rs. 81.000/- as interest thereon, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony and Rs. 2,542/- as the premium in all.

APART from raising certain preliminary objections, the opposite parties have stated in their version that the complainant had taken two Marine Insurance Policies on 31.10.91 covering the risk of registered parcels Nos. 670 and 669 which were respectively dispatched from Jaipur to New York and Jaipur to Paris (France) and the sum assured was respectively Rs. 3,30,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. Both the insurance policies were issued according to the particulars furnished by the complainant and there was no mistake on the part of the opposite parties in preparing the insurance policies. It is denied that there was any typing error in the policies on the part of the opposite parties and it is asserted that the policies were absolutely correct and in accordance with the information supplied by the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had never asked the opposite parties for making any corrections in the policies prior to giving of letter dated. 23.3.93. No assurance was given to the complainant that any correction would be made. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as the parcel alleged to have been stolen was not insured with the opposite parties. Both the sides have filed affidavits and certain documents. We have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and complainant in-person and have gone through the evidence on record. It is clear that in Insurance Policy No. 241107/21/92/01130-Co11 No. 02771 dated 31.10.91, the number of the registered post parcel is mentioned as 670 and the sum assured as Rs. 3,30,000/-. In the other Insurance Policy No. 241107/21/92/01129 the number of the registered post parcel is mentioned as 669 dated 30.10.91 and the sum assured is mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to the case set up by the complainant in para 3 of the complaint, it was on account of typing mistake in the office of opposite party No. 2 that the numbers of the Registered post parcels were wrongly typed inasmuch as while the two parcels were sent under postal receipt Nos. 969 and 970, the numbers were typed as 669 and 670. The complainant''s case further is that the amount of the sum assured was also incorrectly typed. This case of the complainant is totally false that any mistake in typing was committed in the office of opposite party No. 2. The falsity of this case of the complainant is exposed from a letter dated 3.5.93 which had been sent by the complainant to the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur. In this letter the complainant himself mentioned that on account of mistake, the clearing agent gave to the complainant incorrect postal receipt number as 670 and 669 and due to this mistake of the clearing agent that incorrect numbers were written in the insurance policy. Thus in the said letter dated 3.5.93 the complainant had himself put the alleged mistake on the clearing agent and not attributed any mistake on the part of the Insurance Co. It is thus clear that the Insurance Co. had mentioned the registered postal receipt numbers and the sum assured as given to them and there was no typing error on the part of the Insurance Co. The two parcels are alleged to have been sent by registered post parcel on 30.10.91 and the policies were issued on 31.10.91. For 15 months the complainant had not written any letter to the Insurance Co. He never complained at any time that the Insurance Co. had committed any mistake in the insurance policies. When such glaring mistakes had come to the notice of the complainant soon after the issue of the policy, it was naturally expected that the complainant would have written to the Insurance. Co. about the mistake and would have moved for rectification of the mistake. However, the complainant did not send any letter to the Insurance Co. for 15 months. On the other hand, he pursued the matter with the postal authorities on 10.2.92. It appears that the postal authorities did not settle the claim of the complainant for the full amount of the value of the precious stones. Then only the complainant sent a letter dated. 3.5.93 to the Insurance Co. wherein he mentioned that by mistake the clearing agent gave incorrect particulars and that was why the mistake occurred in the insurance policies. For 15 months the complainant has also not submitted any claim for the sum assured with the Insurance Co. He had only pursued the matter with the postal authorities. In the notice which the complainant sent to the Insurance Co. on 1.11.93, the complainant very cleverly even did not mention the registered post parcel receipt number. The Oriental Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant by letter dated 31.12.93 where in they said that the complainant had confessed and confirmed the lapse on his part and that he had declared the particulars of the parcel as given in the policy, but the same were otherwise. The information given by the complainant being material and pertain to the subject matter of the parcel, the Insurance Co. had not undertaken the risk with respect to registered parcel No. 970. The repudiation by the Insurance Co. was thus quite justified and made in good faith. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Co. The subject matter of insurance was the contents of post parcel No. 670 and not of post parcel No. 970. The Insurance Co. had not committed any mistake in typing incorrect post parcel number or the sum assured.

IT may be mentioned that after arguments were heard on 25.3.96 and this complaint was reserved for orders, the complainant moved an application on 12.4.96 mentioning therein the complainant came to know on 10.4.96 that post parcel No. 670 was sent on 6.8.91 by another firm Precious Enterprises Pvt., Ltd. Jaipur under a different insurance policy. Photo copy of the invoice of Precious Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has also been enclosed. Firstly, it may be stated that such photo copies can be procured at any time. Secondly, it may be observed that this document was not produced by the complainant in his evidence and even upto the stage of final arguments. IT was after the case was reserved for orders that he moved the application with photo copy of the invoice. At such belated stage, production of such document cannot be allowed. In any event, it may be mentioned that no mistake was committed by the Insurance Co. in typing the number of the registered post parcel as 670 and also the sum insured. The number of the parcel as well as the sum insured was mentioned as per information given by the complainant or his agent. IT is only after the complainant could not receive the full satisfaction from the postal authorities that he has thought of making a wrong case that on account of typing error, the Insurance Co. has wrongly typed the postal receipt number and the sum assured in the policy. At no state the complainant took any step for rectification of this alleged mistake by sending necessary request to the Insurance Co. or by filing a civil suit. As per the insurance policy, the parcel alleged to have been sent by registered post parcel No. 970 dated 30.10.91 was not insured with the Insurance Co. Consequently, this complaint fails and it is hereby dismissed. The complainant will pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the opposite parties. Complaint dismissed with costs.