AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1228/2012 dated 24.04.2017.
The Petitioner/Complainant Company stated in the Complaint that they manufacture laminated sunmica board etc. and supply manufactured goods to foreign countries. The Complainant took a Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy for the security of goods/consignment. Under this policy, the Petitioner sent single side laminated decorative sheets in 18 wooden crates to Green Lab America INC Dorrel FI 33166 U.S.A., valued at Rs.14,44,356/-. The goods were dispatched from Mumbai to United States of America. In addition of this, the Petitioner sent another consignment, vide invoice No. GIL/LAM/EXP/2300001336, dated 24.11.2009, of 600 single side laminated decorative sheets in 2 wooden crates No. 4039 and 4040 whose total length was 1786.08 metres valued at Rs.6,17,769/-. The exported, goods 20 crates sent by the Petitioner reached the scheduled port on 28.12.2009 and 30.12.2009 and the goods were handed over to receiver. The said goods were sent through Hyco Logistcis Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner got information that the goods were received in a damaged condition. This information was provided to the Respondent Insurance Company by the Petitioner under Insurance Policy No. 141702/21/09/01/00000370 and 141702/21/09/01/00000371, but the claim was repudiated by the Respondent on arbitrary and illegal grounds. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
The Respondent filed written statement in which it was reiterated that on receiving information about the said incident, it appointed independent and recognised surveyor EMIC of New York Jersey Port as investigator, who examined the packing of goods. It was found that the goods sent by the Petitioner through sea route were not according to international standard packing. The goods were not damaged due to water in the container. Rather, goods were damaged due to inappropriate packing and water proof sheets not used in packing, low quality packing, change in climate and moistures. As the said damage/loss was not covered under the said policy, the Petitioner Company was not entitled for any compensation. Hence, it was requested by the Respondent to dismiss the Complaint with costs.
District Forum, vide order dated 24.08.2012, held that the Respondent's letter sent to the Petitioner mentioned detailed reasons of rejection of claim. The EIMC New York survey report mentioned therein details of causes/reasons of damage goods of Petitioner. The laminated sheets were packed face to face to their finished surfaces, with no paper insert between them. The investigation report annexed clearly showed that the Petitioner had not packed its goods according to international standard and low quality packing and change in climate and moisture caused damage. The same was not covered under the policy. It was, therefore, not proved that the Respondent had wrongly repudiated the claim of the Petitioner. The Complaint against Respondent was dismissed in light of the above facts.
Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission which held "The appellant has Marine insured and appellant dispatched laminated decorative sheet to America but it was found damaged and same was examined and in its report found that container was in good condition and neither theft was occurred nor sunmica lamination sheets broken. The goods are damaged due to seepage, the goods were sent through vessel. It was duty of opposite party that goods were packed as per climate of area in which vessels passed during journey to protect the goods. As per survey report the quality of packing was not required ." (translated version). The State Commission, vide order dated 24.04.2017, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
This Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence and reach to its own independent conclusion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011(3) Scale 654 has held as under:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power cane be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same sets of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora".
There is a concurrent finding on the matter as both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have opined that from the available records it was found that the damage to goods/consignment was due to improper packaging of goods.
The packaging should withstand the climatic conditions during the voyage. The Survey Report mentions that the container reached the final destination with seal intact. No damages to the container indicating rough handling during transit was documented. As per warehouse personnel the "shippers load, count and seal" container was received in good condition. Wetting of few laminated sheets inspected were due to condensation type condition. As per laboratory analysis, however, there was severe mold growth and no contact with sea water.
Based on the report of the Surveyor, the Insurance Company rejected the claim as follows:
"In the above claim Settling Agent M/s. EIMC has attributed loss to material due ton "condensation type wetting/mold damages" inside the container. From laboratory test it was confirmed that there is no contact with sea water. After close scrutiny of the Survey Report it is concluded that the loss is due to inherent vice of the subject matter as also insufficiency of packing material viz. wooden crates not being moisture proof leading to the loss. So the claim is not payable under the Policy, which please note."
Though externally well packed, and there were no apparent damage due to mishandling or sea water coming into contact with the crates, due to 'inherent vice' of the subject matter as well as packaging not being moisture proof, 'condensation type wetting/mold damages' occurred and damaged the consignment, for which the Petitioner cannot make others responsible.
In view of the above, the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim of the Petitioner. The Revision Petition is dismissed.