AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant has claimed balance of the insurance claim under the Marine Insurance Policy from the opposite party-Insurance Company. Admittedly, complainant has received a sum of Rs. 18,11,017/- which Insurance Company says was received in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant. As a matter of fact, complainant had advanced claim of Rs. 43,09,756/- and after reducing the same from the amount received from Insurance Company it claimed balance amount of Rs. 24,98,739/-. Complainant also claimed Rs. 5.00 lakhs on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5.00 lakhs as exemplary damages.
COMPLAINANT imported non-alloy steel blooms from Japan which was shipped in the vessel ''M.P. Pavon''. For the consignment being imported complainant had taken an insurance cover from the opposite party-Insurance Company. Various terms of the policy have been set out in the complaint. It is stated that after the ship sailed from Japan when it was on the high seas it faced rough weather with the result that water had ingressed into the hull of the ship. The state of General Average (GA) was declared which in common parlance is declaration of emergency. General Average has been defined that "in maritime law, loss or damage accidentally happening to a vessel or to its cargo during a voyage". The ship was, therefore, diverted to Hong Kong for repairs and after necessary repairs it was again set sail and reached Calcutta on 27.5.1998. Consignment of non-alloy blooms was off-loaded and it was found that it was in a damaged condition. Insurance Company was informed who appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 18,06,292/- plus survey fees of Rs. 4,725/-. The Insurance Company wrote to the complainant on 27.8.1999 that its claim had been approved for settlement for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 18,06,292/- plus survey fees of Rs. 4,725/-. By letter dated 1.9.1999 Insurance Company sent a cheque for Rs. 18,11,017/- to the complainant. Complainant on his letter head by reference No. 13084 dated 31.8.1999 gave a receipt having received the amount towards settlement of his claim as per the policy in question. On 9.9.1999 complainant wrote to the Insurance Company informing it that against its claim for over Rs. 43.00 lakhs it was given a cheque for only Rs. 18.00 lakhs or so and that it was not satisfied with the settlement of the claim and wanted to know the condition as to why its claim was reduced. Reply to this letter was sent by the Insurance Company on 22.9.1999 giving the details as to how figure of Rs. 18,11,017/- had been arrived at. By their letter dated 8.8.2000 in reply to another letter of the complainant the Insurance Company informed the complainant that complainant by its own letter bearing reference No. 13084 dated 31.8.1999 had given full and final discharge for the claim in question. This complaint came to be filed on 8.5.2001 seeking the amount of Rs. 34,98,739/-. The Insurance Company had acted on the report of the Surveyor appointed under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the report of the Surveyor is defective in any way. Be that as it may, in a case like this we do not think there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in remitting the amount as arrived at by the Surveyor. For the amount now claimed by the complainant over and above what has been settled, parties (sic) and documentary. An issue has also to be decided if the payment receipt given by the complainant has full and final settlement of its claim as contended by the Insurance Company or was received under protest as claimed by the complainant.
FOR the amount claimed in this complaint, in our view it will be appropriate that we relegate the parties to Civil Court as it will not be possible to decide the issue in our summary jurisdiction. Accordingly we return this complaint to be filed in a Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum. Complainant will certainly have a right to seek exclusion of the time spent in pursuing this complaint as provided under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 2 CPJ 1 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 583.