WORLD CONNECT EXPRESS vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

The complainant obtained an insurance policy to the extent of Rs. 8,29,37,735/-, paying a premium of Rs. 1,39,785/-. The payment was made on 28.04.2014 by way of a cheque and a receipt was issued to the complainant on the same date by the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the complainant states that the policy was valid upto 12.06.2014. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid policy was taken for the purpose of transporting a consignment, containing 109 boxes, from Kolkata to Dulaijan in Assam to its client Schlumberger Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The case of the complainant is that the goods, while being transported from Kolkata to Dulaijan, got damaged due to heavy rains, delay in transit, riots and curfew in transit area. The transporter issued a certificate to the complainant, certifying that 24 out of 109 boxes were drenched in water and were exposed to rains during the transit. The complainant intimated the loss suffered by it, to the Insurance Company, vide communication dated 14.05.2014. As per the communication sent to the Insurance Company, the consignment had got damaged due to heavy rains in transit. Thus, this was not the case of the complainant, in the communication sent to the Insurance Company, that the consignment was damaged also on account of riots, delay, curfew etc.

The Insurance Company, vide its e-mail dated 19.05.2014, informed the complainant as under:- "We wish to inform you the cover granted under the policy No. 131102/21/2015/11 is as per ITC-B which covers the following risks.

(a) (i) Fire (ii) Lightning (iii) breakage of Bridges

(b) (i) Collision with or by the carrying vehicle (ii) Overturning of the carrying vehicle

(iii) derailment of accident of like nature to the carrying railway wagon/Vehicle.

The cause of damage mentioned in your letter dated 14.05.2014 is Heavy Rain which is not covered under the policy. Hence, the claim is not payable."

It would thus be seen that the stand taken by the Insurance Company was that the damage alleged to have been sustained by the complainant was not covered within the scope of the insurance policy issued to it.

The case of the complainant is that it was interested in taking an ''All Risk Cover Policy'' and, therefore, had approached the agent of the Insurance Company, namely Mr. Satish Kumar H. Singh, who calculated the premium and intimated the same to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the policy was issued by the concerned Branch Manager, Mr. Arun Satpute, in consultation with the agent, Mr. Satish Kumar H. Singh and the said policy was an ''All Risk Cover Policy''. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a letter dated 16.07.2014, purporting to be sent by Mr. Satish Kumar H. Singh to the complainant. The aforesaid letter to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:- "I am Apologetic for the loss you have incurred due to heavy rainfall in transit. As per your request for the All-Risk Covery Policy for the shipment, I have instructed our branch manager, Mr. Arun Satpute to give calculation for the premium, accordingly I informed you the premium amount. I had a trust in you and our branch manager. And I was not well aware with the Marine Insurance policy, so I had put my trust on my branch manager. After explaining him the purpose of taking the policy to cover all sorts of risk of the goods during transit of the above said contract. I say that, the Insurance Officer convinced me and promised me that the above policy will cover all sorts of risks in transportation the goods. He said nothing will happen to the goods in transit, and so there is no need of a surveyor at the time of loading even though you have asked to appoint a surveyor at Kolkata. I have conveyed the requirements to our branch manager and myself acted only as an agent, and there was no intention to misguide you or lead you into trouble, I know you had a huge loss Sorry for the same."

The cover note issued to the complainant, inter-alia, reads as under:-

"Sr. No. Cover Sum Insured

Institute Transit (Rail-Road) Clauses ''B'' 82,937,735/-

Inland Transit (SRCC) Clauses (Cover) 82,937,735/-

Risk Covered: Institute Transit (Rail/Road) Clauses ''B'', Inland Transit (SRCC) Clauses (Cover). Excess/Deductible: Rs. 5,00,000/- FOR EACH AND EVERY CLAIM"

It would be seen from a perusal of the cover note issued to the complainant, that the insurance cover issued to him gave indemnity to the complainant only against such losses, which were covered under Institute Transit (Rail/Road) Clause ''B'' and Inland Transit (SRCC) Clauses (Cover). The aforesaid policy, therefore, cannot be said to be ''All Risk Cover Policy''. If the damage alleged to have been sustained by the complainant was not covered under the terms of the policy issued to it, the Insurance Company obviously cannot be directed to reimburse him for the said damage.

As noted earlier, the Insurance Company informed the complainant vide its e-mail dated 19.05.2014 that only (a) (i) Fire (ii) Lightning (iii) breakage of Bridges, (b) (i) Collision with or by the carrying vehicle (ii) Overturning of the carrying vehicle and (iii) derailment of accident of like nature to the carrying railway wagon/Vehicle were covered as per ITC-B. There is no material on record to show that any risks other than the risks specified in the e-mail dated 19.05.2014 were covered under ITC-B risks. Since the damage to the complainant allegedly took place on account of heavy rains, the said damage is not covered under the terms of the policy issued to it. Even riots, curfew etc. are not covered under ITC-B, though as noted earlier the claim of the complainant before the Insurance Company was only on account of damage caused due to heavy rains.

In our opinion, if the complainant wanted only an ''All Risk Cover Policy'', therefore, instead of accepting the cover note which restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to Institute Transit (Rail/Road) Clause ''B'', Inland Transit (SRCC) Clauses (Cover), it ought to have rejected the said policy, asked the Insurance Company to refund the premium paid by it and obtained an ''All Risk Cover Policy'', wherever such a policy could be available at that time. In our view, having accepted the cover note which restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to the specified contingencies, the complainant cannot seek reimbursement on account of damages, which are not covered under the insurance policy issued to it.

As regards the communication between the agent to the Branch Manager, nothing really turns on it since on receipt of the insurance cover, the complainant came to know that the insurance policy issued to him was not an ''All Risk Cover Policy'' and in fact covered the risk only to a limited extent. Therefore, if the said policy was not covered in terms of the assurances given to him by the agent, he ought to have rejected the said policy, claimed refund of the premium paid by him and taken a policy which would have served his purpose.

The learned counsel for the complainant states that by the time the policy cover was received on 28.04.2014, the consignment has already been dispatched. That, in our view, would be of no consequences since the complainant either ought to have taken an appropriate policy before the consignment left for its destination or it ought to have taken an appropriate policy as soon as the cover note was received by it and it came to know that the said cover note did not cover all risk which could possibly arise during the course of transportation of the goods from Kolkata to Dulaijan.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the loss alleged to have been sustained by the complainant is not covered under the terms of the insurance policy issued to it. The rejection of the claim, therefore, cannot be faulted with. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.