AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainant obtained an Open Marine Policy from the opposite party, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 17.10.2016 to 16.10.2017 in respect of the transit of goods and machinery from Ludhiana to anywhere in India. The case of the complainant which claims to be a partnership firm of one Mr. Karan Shingari and Mr. Ramesh Chand, is that they received order for blankets and six baby soft machines, etc. which they loaded in a truck bearing No.MH-12 FF-1414 on 19/20th October, 2016. The goods according to the complainant were consigned to M/s RPK Fabrics. This is also the case of the complainant that the truck, in which the goods were sent was owned by one Mr. Ajay Rao and one of his employees late Rahul Ahuja had accompanied the truck driver who was carrying the goods. It is alleged that on 20.10.2016, the complainant received a call from the purchaser that the consignment had not been received by them. When the complainant tried to contact the truck driver, his mobile phone was found switched off. An FIR at the concerned police station was registered on 5.1.2017 pursuant to a direction issued by the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was sent untraced since the driver named by the complainant could not be located and it was found that the registration number provided by the complainant was in fact the registration number of a car and not of a truck. On receipt of the intimation from the complainant, the insurer engaged an agency, namely, M/s Royal Associates to investigate the claim. The investigator reported that the claim was not genuine. Thereupon the insurer repudiated the claim vide letter dated 6.11.2017 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"This has reference to your intimation through mail on 24.10.2016 followed by written intimation received on 7.11.2016 informing that goods dispatched have not reached the destination at village Bathri Teh. Haroli District Una (H.P.). You were immediately requested to provide us copy of FIR, copy of GR and any other information to substantiate the claim. Only copy of FIR was received by us on 17.1.2017 and investigators were deputed to investigate the claim. The findings of investigator are as under:-
As per your version that the goods were dispatched from Ludhiana to Bathri, Distt. Una on 19.10.2016 through truck No. MH-12-F-1414 but no evidence i.e., G.R. has been provided which indicates that goods were not delivered and dispatched through the said truck.
You have not disclosed the name of transporter from where goods were booked. You have taken the plea that truck had been taken from road side and loaded the truck as driver demanded very less amount of rent so goods dispatched through the said truck, but the same is not believable as no person can hand over such a huge consignment to the driver whom you do not know.
You have alleged that goods were dispatched from Ludhiana to Bathri Distt. Una on 19.10.2016 but FIR was got registered on 5.1.2017 only. The said FIR was got registered on the application of Mr. Karan Shingari which was moved in writing through counsel and in the application name of any person or any employee who accompanied with the said vehicle along with goods is not mentioned. Later on you have mentioned that Mr. Rahul Ahuia also accompanied. You have also not moved any application immediately at Luthana to the Police to this effect. This also makes it clear about manipulation of things to get claim.
You have also not informed to the Police regarding health and admission of Mr. Rahal Ahuia in DMC and have not got recorded statement of Mr. Rahul Ahuja with Police and also not provided any opportunity to our Company/investigator of the Company to get statement of Mt. Rahul Ahuja.
The registration number of truck provided by you also found fake and investigator confirmed that the said registration No. MH-l2-FF-1414 was allotted to Maruti Swift Dzire car in the name of Mrs. Anita Ram Dass.
You have provided copy of rent agreement deed but our Investigator could not trace out said firm at Bathri.
Our Investigator visited your factory premises at Industrial Area Ludhiana and said factory was found locked and investigator rang and after half an hour the gate of the factory was opened and investigator found that there was no stock in the factory and entire factory was full of dust from which it was clear that factory was not open from some months.
Your claim that one building was hired at vill Bathiri, Distt.,Una but when the investigator visited, the building was found closed and security guard present there stated that building was sealed by Bank, hence your claim about machines sent to new factory was also found incorrect.
You have also failed to provide any details of crane and names of labourers through which machines were loaded on the said truck which also shows that machines were never loaded in the truck.
You have also failed to provide any evidence to the effect that said alleged truck entered in Himachal Pradesh with goods.
The Investigator has recorded statement of many persons which are also on file and said statements also prove the fact that the claim lodged by you is totally false.
It has been stated that new firm has been started in partnership with Mr. Ramesh Chand, but when our Investigator contacted Mr. Ramesh Chand, he stated that he was worker of Mr. Karan Shingari at Ludhiana about two years back and is not partner in his new factory at Bhatri. He is even not aware of machines being shifted to new factory from Ludhiana. He does not have any link with Mr. Karan Shingari for the last two years, hence this claim about partnership has also been found incorrect.
In view of the above, it is very clear that the goods have not been dispatched, hence journey has not started, so as per terms and conditions of the Policy the claim is not payable and therefore stands repudiated. This is for your kind information, please."
Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this consumer complaint.
The case of the complainant is that the goods were dispatched in a truck bearing No. MH-12 FF-1414 driven by one Mr. Ajay Rao. The above referred registration, on enquiry was found to be of a car and not of a truck. The complainant does not even claim that Mr. Ajay Rao driver of the truck was previously known to them and had carried goods for them, on an earlier occasion. Therefore, it is quite strange and rather unbelievable that the complainant would entrust goods worth more than Rs.1 crore to an unknown person, without even seeing the registration papers of the truck. In the normal course of business, the goods from one city to another would be sent through a transport / carrier which would issue a Goods Receipt to the consignor. The complainant does not claim that Mr. Ajay Rao was running a transport agency or was deputed by a transport agency to carry the goods to Una from Ludhiana. Even a receipt/acknowledgment was not taken by the complainant while allegedly entrusting goods worth more than Rs.1 crore to him. The case set out by the complainant in this regard, therefore, appears to be a highly improbable.
Though in his statement to the investigator given at a much later date, the complainant claimed that one of their employees, namely, Mr. Rahul Ahuja had accompanied the goods in the truck, no such averment was made even in the complaint which they sent to the Supdt. of Police, Una on 26.12.2016, more than two months after the alleged entrustment of the goods to Mr. Ajay Rao. The complainant also simultaneously claimed that the person who was sent by them to accompany the goods, namely, Mr. Rahul Ahuja had since expired on the Diwali day. The complainant also claims to have made a complaint to SHO Police Station Haroli on 21.10.2016 though there is no proof of the said complaint having actually been delivered or even dispatched. Even in this complaint, purporting to be made to SHO, Police Station, Haroli, it was not alleged that Mr. Rahul Ahuja employee of the complainant had accompanied the goods in the truck.
The goods were allegedly entrusted to Mr. Ajay Rao on 19.10.2016. Though a complaint is alleged to have been addressed to SHO, Police Station, Haroli on 21.10.2016, as noted earlier, there is no proof of receipt of the said complaint by the SHO or even of its dispatch to him. In the complaint made to S.P. Una on 26.12.2016, there is no reference to the complaint purporting to have been made to SHO Police Station, Haroli on 21.10.2016. No copy of the said complaint dated 21.10.2016 was annexed to the complaint sent to S.P. Una. Even in the formal FIR registered at the police station on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by the complainant, there is no allegation that Mr. Rahul Ahuja employee of the complainant had accompanied the goods in the truck. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that no employee of the complainant had accompanied the goods in the truck. This, in turn creates a very strong suspicion about the genuineness of the claim made by the complainant who specifically stated in his statement to the investigator that Mr. Rahul Ahuja had accompanied the goods in the truck and thereafter he had died on Diwali.
The investigator appointed by the insurer visited the factory premises of the complainant and found the same locked. When the gate was opened after half an hour, he found no stock in the factory which was full of dust and had not been opened from months together.
Though the complainant claimed that one building was hired by them as Village Bathri in Dist. Una, the said building was found closed when visited by the investigator and the security guard told him that the building had been seized by the bank.
Though according to the complainant the goods were loaded with the help of a crane, no details of the said crane or the labourers employed for the purpose were provided.
It was claimed by the complainant that a new firm had been started in partnership with Mr. Ramesh Chand but Mr. Ramesh Chand, when contacted by investigator claimed that he was only a worker of Mr. Karan Shingari about two years ago, at Ludhiana and was not his partner in the new factory at Bathri. He also stated that he had no link with Mr. Karan Shingari for the last two years.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am satisfied that the repudiation of the claim was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The entire story given by the complainant with respect to the alleged dispatched of the goods from Ludhiana to Una in a truck appears to be concocted and the claim made by them appears to be a fake claim. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.