AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Tine Abraham, for the complainant and Mr. A.K. De for the opposite party. This complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to make payment of JPY 30,572,000, approximately, INR 1,78,20,113 as insurance claim to the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of loss till the date of payment, cost of litigation and any other relief which is deemed fit. It has been stated that the complainant purchased a Laser Machine which is a combination of CNC Co2 laser three-dimensional processing machine (Machine) and a Chiller FOR 20CF3 (Chiller) from Mitsubishi Corporation (Mitsubishi) on 18.05.2016. The machine was to be shipped from Japan to Chennai Seaport by Kintetsu World Express. The complainant sent an e-mail to the employees of the opposite party on 26.08.2016 for issue of marine policy for cover for transit from Nagoya Port, Japan to Chennai. In pursuance to the aforesaid e-mail, the marine policy No. 1703002116P107007074 has been issued to the complainant on 26.08.2016. The aforesaid consignment were booked from sea-port Nagoya , Japan to Chennai. It was securely delivered at sea-port Chennai on 14.09.2016 and from where the consignment has to be transported to the warehouse of the complainant at Manur Village, Kachipuram, while it was transported through road, it was got damaged at Madhavram Bridge in Chennai. The complainant duly informed the opposite party about the loss on 21.09.2016 on which the opposite party appointed Mr. K.P. Balakrishnan, Insurance Surveyor as the surveyor and loss assessor at Chennai. The surveyor has made survey and submitted his final report on 03.02.2017.
Although the surveyor has assessed the loss but at the same time, he made observation that the loss has not been covered under the policy. Thereafter, all the papers were considered by the competent authority of opposite party. The opposite party has repudiated the claim by letter dated 04.10.2017. Hence, this complaint has been filed. The opposite party has filed the written reply and contested the matter. The complainant has filed rejoinder reply. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence of J. Sasikala. The opposite party filed affidavit of evidence of Gyan Prakash, Administrative Officer.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. However, the policy documents have been filed alongwith complaint, in which it has been mentioned ‘Nagoya Port, Japan to Chennai’.
Clause 8 & 8.1 of the policy is reproduced as under:-
“8. Subject to Clause 11 below, this insurance attaches from the time the subject-matter insured is first
8.1 moved in the warehouse or at the place of storage (at the place named in the contract of insurance) for the purpose of the immediate loading into or onto the carrying vehicle or other conveyance for the commencement of transit, continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates either”
8.1.1 on completion of unloading from the carrying vehicle or other conveyance in or at the final warehouse or place of storage at the destination named in the contract of insurance.”
If the place of insurance is Chennai is read alongwith clause 8 of the policy documents, then it is clear that the policy terminates as soon as the carriage was unloaded from vessel. Thus, there was no ambiguity in the insurance policy. As far as the case law filed by the complainant in FA/377 and 379 of 2002 -National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangalagowri Cashew Industries, is concerned, in this case the policy was from warehouse to warehouse. As such this case is not applicable to the present case. So far as arguments that the policy should have been issued from warehouse to warehouse according to the invoice, a perusal of the e-mail shows that the complainant itself desired for issue of policy from Nagoya Port, Japan to Chennai, not from warehouse to warehouse at District Kanchipuram, therefore, neither there is ambiguity in the policy and the complainant cannot take any benefit of the invoice.
The complaint is dismissed.