National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Gurdip Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 5.4.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (herinafter called the District Forum).

RESONDENT No. 1 complainant (herinafter called the complainant) had purchased an open marine policy (photostat copy of cover note is Ex. C-3) to cover the risk of the goods despatched by rail or road transport to various destinations in India. The terms of the cover note indicate the covering of the goods by rail/road risks and all risks from warehouse to warehouse. The policy was purchased to avoid any risk of damage to the seed potatoes during transit as the complainant claims to be an agriculturist and produces high quality potato seeds and sends the same to various agricultural farms and individual growers in the country. In the case in hand, the complainant had despatched 490 bags of seeds potato from Jalandhar to Dharwad (Karnataka) as per bill No. 3227 dated 27.6.1988 for a total sum of Rs. 3,21,650/-. The goods were sent from Jalandhar to Delhi in four trucks as large trucks (trailers) were not available in Jalandhar. From Delhi, the goods were transhipped to three large trucks (trailers) bearing No. DL-IGA/1401, GR N. 1709 dated 27.6.1998 owned by M/s. Jammu Road Carriers, New Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. The consignee M/s. Haji, D.B. Navalgundkar and Co. Dharwad (Karnataka), reported that out of the total consignment 163 bags of seed potato were received in rotten condition giving foul smell. On the request of the complainant, the consignee requested appellant (respondent No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called respondent No. 1) in his Dharwad Office for deputing a Surveyor to inspect the damaged consigment. It was reported to the complainant that truck No. DL-IGA/1401 developed some mechanical fault on the way and broken down twice as a result the truck reached Dharwad late on 5.7.1998. On the same day, the damaged condition of the seeds was intimated to the Dharwad office of respondent No. 1. The Surveyor of respondent No. 1 inspected the consignment on 6.7.1998 in the Vegetable Market, Dharwad and submitted his survey report Ex. C-10. All the potatoes were sorted out and of the good condition were sold for a total sum of Rs. 28,116/- under the direction of the Surveyor. The Surveyor had assessed the total loss of Rs. 70,684/- including the labour charges. Rs. 2,716/- were paid to the Surveyor by the consignee on behalf of the complainant against the proper receipt, photocopy of which is Ex. C-11. The claim of the complainant was filed as "no claim" by respondent No. 1 vide Ex. R-2. The complainant, thus, filed a complaint before the District Forum that respondent No. 1 and M/s. Jammu Road Carriers, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 2 before the District Forum also) (herenafter called respondent No. 2) be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,38,500/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum had allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the decision has been rightly taken by respondent No. 1 as stated in the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Mr. R.S. Bhatti, Divisional Managar, firstly, on the ground that the delay in reaching the potatoes seed at Dharwad was due to negligence of the complainant; secondly, it was without the permission of respondent No. 1 that the complainant changed the goods at Delhi from four trucks to three trailers and lastly on the ground that it was a carrier who were mainly responsible for making good the loss. The first liability was that of the carrier and if for some reason or the other, they were unable to make good the loss, then only respondent. No. 1 could be asked to pay the loss. The same argument was made by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 before the District Forum and the District Forum has rightly rejected this argument of the learned Counsel. Once the form for declaration of the goods from Delhi to Dharwad was accepted by respondent No. 1, their objections that the goods transhipped without their permission looses its significance. Ex. C-4 is the form of declaration of the goods from New Delhi to Dharwad accepted by respondent No.1 after receiving the dues. Since the claim is for loss and damage of goods loaded in a truck from Delhi to Dharwad for which respondent No. 1 had accepted separate declaration, the GR of truck for transportation of goods from Jalandhar to Delhi were not relevant. Holding the complainant responsible for any negligence resulting in delay in reaching the potato seeds was also devoid of any merit. The truck developed some mechanical fault. It was not the complainant who could be held responsible for this mechanical fault of the truck. It was something beyond the control of the complainant. As regards the liability of the carriers, the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant had purchased policy for any damage or risk of his potatoes seed during transit period or for any other unforseen reason. When the damage has been proved by the representative of respondent No. 1 himself, the complainant has every right to claim the loss from respondent No. 1. The potatoes were inspected by the Surveyor of respondent No. 1 at its Dharwad office. Some of the saleable seeds were sold for a sum of Rs. 28,116/- in the presence of the Surveyor as per document Ex. C-19. The Surveyor has also in his report assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs. 70,684/-. In these circumstances, respondent No. 1 was not left with any ground for not accepting the claim of the complainant. The potatoes were duly insured for the risk of damage or loss in the transit. The loss has been proved by the representative of respondent No.1 himself. There is no allegation that the representative of respondent No. 1 has tried to help the complainant in any manner. Re-transportation of potatoes from Delhi to Dharwad was carried out with the permission of respondent No.1 as is evident from the farm of declaration of goods in transit Ex. C-4. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.