United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Exotic India & Anr

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 Appeal No. 1152/2017 dated 27.09.2018.

In the Complaint Case, Respondent No.1/Complainant was in the business of export of metal and other types of jewellery on a small scale in the name of Exotic India, for his livelihood. Respondent No.1 obtained a Marine Life Insurance Policy No. 141300/21/14/10/700006554 from Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 for safety from all types of risk in exporting jewellery abroad. Respondent No.1 sent a consignment of metal jewellery through Respondent No.2 by bubble packing in steel boxes to Addition Vic's -420 for Virginia City of United States of America. The said consignment was received on 25.11.2014 by Linlesani Addition Vic's-420 but 5 packagesout of 8 packages were receivedin damaged condition by the Consignee. Out of 422 pieces of metal jewellery 49 pieces were received by consignee in damaged condition for which certificate was issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 informed about the loss to the Petitioner, on which they appointed Surveyor i.e. W.K. Webster Company and Ltd. who assessed the loss as 5030 US Dollar, vide report dated 24.04.2015, but Petitioner did not settle the claim.Hence, Complaint was filed by Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

The Petitioner contested the Complaint by filing Written Statement wherein it was accepted that a Marine Life Insurance Policy Number 141300/21/14/10/700006554 was issued to Respondent No.1. A Surveyor was appointed for assessment of claim of the Petitioner who clarified in his report that the loss occurred due to insufficient and improper packing and this loss came under exclusion No.2.3 and 2.4 of the insurance policy. The Surveyor further stated in the report that jewellery items packed were in thin and small boxes and could not have remained safe. There was neither sufficient space for jewellery items nor they were put safely by wrapping in foam and cotton. There was no space inside the boxes and jewellery was not packed properly. The claim of Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not payable. The Petitioner had also stated in the written statement that according to the insurance contract, in case of any loss, claim for loss should be submitted immediately by giving notice to the carrier but Respondent No.1 informed the insurance company regarding loss after delay of 3 months, which was violation of the condition of Insurance Company. The Petitioner stated that Respondent No.1 also received complete sale amount from the consignee and has not proved its insurable interest. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not entitled to get any relief. The Petitioner also stated that Respondent was a Commercial Firm, which transacted business for profit. Therefore, Complaint was not maintainable and the Petitioner prayed for dismissal of the same.

District Forum, vide order dated 11.04.2007, allowed the Complaint against the Petitioner and directed him to pay Respondent No.2 the amount of lossof US Dollar 5030, value of which in Indian Currency was Rs.3,42,040/- as calculated in the Survey Report dated 24.04.2015, along with interest @9% per annum from date of filing of Complaint till the payment within 2 months.In addition to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.51,000/- to Respondent No.1 under the head of cost within 2months,rest the Petitioner would be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from date of the order till payment of the amountof Rs.51,000/- also.

Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 27.09.2018, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. 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.

It is not disputed that the Respondent No.1 obtained a Marine Life Insurance Policy from the Petitioner for protection of all types of risks for its jewellery to be exported by the Complainant firm and sending the consignment of jewellery to US through Respondent No.2 carrier.Respondent No.1 paid the due premium amount to compensate for any loss to the goods in transit.Hence there was a service provider and receiver relationship between them and falls within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.The metal jewellery was packed in boxes and bubble wrapped.It is seen that out of 422 pieces of metal jewellery only 49 pieces were damaged.If the packaging was improper, the damages ought to have been much more. Thus, there does not appear to be any negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 as observed by the District Forum.The District Forum has also rightly observed that the Opposite Party No.1 Insurance Company has not rejected the claim of the Complainant firm specifically on grounds of delay and is estopped from taking this plea at a later stage.

Both the District Forum and State Commission have clearly stated that Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the amount assessed by the Surveyor. While going into merits of the case, I find no error in the order passed by the Fora below.

The Revision Petition is dismissed and orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission are confirmed.