PAMWI TISSUES LTD. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE complainant despatched paper weighing 8740 kgs. vide Challan No. 131 dated 5.6.89 and G.R. No. 1182 of the same date through Truck No. HIA6511 which was owned by respondent No. 2 the transporter. THE goods in question were to be delivered to M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay. THE truck in question started on 6.6.89 from the premises of the complainant and reached Bombay on 10.6.89. THE agreement of sale of the goods to the consignee did not materialise and the truck driver was instructed to contact complainant''s Bombay office for diverting the goods to another probable consignee. Ultimately the goods were kept at the premises of M/s. Dipti Warehousing & Trading Company, Curry Road, Bombay to avoid loss on account of rain. However on 14.6.89 the Warehouse caught fire and the consignment of the paper belonging to the complainant valued at Rs. 3,46,976.60 was destroyed. THE United India Insurance Company, the respondent No. 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant after postponing it on several occasions allegedly on one pretext or the other. THE claim now put forward by the complainant is reproduced as under : Thus a sum of Rs. 6,21,831.60 together with interest @ 18% has been claimed.

THE respondent No. 1 filed a reply wherein it has been averred that originally the complainant wanted to enter into a deal with Modern Paper Converters but did not succeed and the aforesaid consignee refused to accept the goods. THE complainant made an attempt to strike a deal of the consignment with Parle Products but it did not succeed. THE goods in ques tion were stored in Dipti Warehousing at the instructions of Patel Paper Mart which is a sister concern of the complainant. Since the complainant could not find the appropriate buyer the goods remained at the Dipti Warehouse on the instructions collected from the complainant and the transit was complete qua the respondent No. 1. THE consignment was lying at a godown selected by the complainant for temporary storage through its dealers Ravichi Paper Mart and Patel Paper Mart. THE loss in question did not occur during the transit. THE surveyor was appointed by Bombay Regional Office of respondent No. 1 but the aforesaid Regional Office was not aware of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy because it was executed at Branch Office situate in Sector 26, Chandigarh. THE Surveyor was appointed because it was essential considering the urgency and not that the appointment of surveyor was to be treated as a kind of admission of the liability. In the letter Annexure P-28 it was specifically mentioned that the consignment was on door delivery basis. It was further averred that the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The respondent No. 2 filed a separate reply wherein it has been averred that the Patel Paper Mart asked the driver to deposit the goods in Dipti Warehouse where the Company has permanent storing facility. The driver of the respondent Transporter deposited the goods in the warehouse of Dipti Warehousing and obtained the requisite receipt. The version of the respondent was conveyed to the complainant through letter dated 13.6.89. It was also averred that the claim was barred by time and that the answering respondent was entitled to costs.

It is the case of the complainant that M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay the consignee refused to accept the consignment. This goes to show that the goods which were dispatched from the premises of the complainant on 6.6.89 from Barotiwala, District. Solan (Himachal Pradesh) did reach the consignee nominated by the complainant on 10.6.89. Since the. consignee declined to accept delivery the driver of respondent No. 2 was able to locate appropriate place for storing the goods at the premises of Dipti Warehousing and Trading Company. The respondent No. 2 in its letter dated 12.9.92, Annexure P-28 clearly mentioned that it had accepted the consignment on door delivery basis. It did not possess any place or premises for storing the unaccepted goods. There appears to be no deficiency on the part of respondent No. 2, the transporter.

IT shall be useful to refer to para 5 of the complaint which as a whole is reproduced as under: "That the truck carrying the consignment of paper referred to in para 3 above, left the complainant''s factory at Barotiwala, District Solan, HP on 6.6.89 and reached Bombay on the 10th June, 1989. As per the Challan the goods were to be delivered to M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay. In case the matter of delivery to the party did not materialise, the truck driver was instructed to contact complainant''s Bombay office, who would have made arrangement for diverting the consignment."

A perusal of this paragraph which is an important part of the complaint itself shows that the complainant dispatched the goods with a direction that these were to be delivered to M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay, in anticipation of an agreement of sale in favour of the aforesaid consignee. IT is clear that by that time there was no agreement of sale between the complainant on the one hand and M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay on the other hand. It shall also be useful to refer to letter dated 16.12.92 addressed by United India Insurance Company respondent 1 to the complainant and it is reproduced as under : "Ref. NKS: PKS : Marine Claims December 16,1992 M/s. Pamwi Tissues Ltd, SCO No. 55, Sector 26-D, CHANDIGARH. Without Prejudice. Dear Sirs, Re : M/s. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. Claim Our Claim No. 110204/21/7/627/89 Fire loss on 14.6.89. This is with reference to above. The Competent Authority has decided to close the claim file as "No Claim" for the reasons stated below : "The consignment was sent to Bombay on Door Delivery Basis for M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay. From insured''s own records, it has come to light that Modern Paper Converters refused the material. The material was then sent to M/s. Parle Products who also refused to take the delivery. Then only the material was stored elsewhere. From the insured''s letter to our R.O., it is found that the insured himself stated the cargo was temporarily stored at the place of loss. The carrier have certified that they do not own any godown anywhere and consignments are booked on Door Delivery Basis with instructions received from consigner regarding delivery". This is for your kind information. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Branch Manager"

A perusal of this letter fortifies the factual position that the anticipated agreement of sale between the complainant and M/s. Modern Paper Converters, Bombay, did not materialise and thereafter the driver of respondent-2, the transporter, ran from pillar to post and succeeded in storing the goods at the premises known as Deepti Warehousing & Trading Company in the interest of the complainant. There is nothing to suggest that the repudiation has been made otherwise than in good faith by respondent No. 1. The conclusion is that the present complaint fails and it is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

ANNOUNCED. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Complaint dismissed.