AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR. Justice B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member-Heard learned Counsel for parties, on admission. Salient features of the case are that respondent Company who had a business of exporting rice and wheat, had obtained a Marine Cargo Policy from petitioner company for insured value of Rs. 50.00 crores which covered transit and storage of stock as well, on getting the consignment unloaded/off loaded for a period of 56 days from the time the material arrives at the destination at port. While so, while cargo with consignment proceeded from Port of Kandla to Gandhidham, suffered cyclone and heavy rains sustaining damages of the consignment. Insurance claim was lodged with petitioner-Insurance Company for Rs. 48,75,350. As Insurance Company took considerable time in settlement of claim, despite repeated visits of representative of the respondent company, the latter gave its consent for settlement of claim for a sum of Rs. 38,48,333.17. Even payment of this assured sum was not made to the company as a sum of Rs. 28,51,237 was paid on deduction of 1/2% amounting to Rs. 9,97,076. Respondent company, left with no option, had to give its consent and also executed Discharge Voucher. Aggrieved with settlement of claim for considerable reduced value of the claim, a consumer complaint was filed. Complaint was resisted by Insurance Company, invoking excess clause incorporated in the policy document which were in the following terms: "Subject to an excess of 1/2% on per GR/Per Railway Wagon. Risk of insurance cover loaded and unloaded as is apparent from the preceding clause. Preceding clause ''single carrying limit: By Rail Rs. 3 crores and by Road Rs. 15 lakh, Loading/Unloading also covered''."
RISK of insurance cover-loaded and unloaded, as is apparent from the preceding clause, Single carrying limit-By Rail, it is 3.00 crores and by Road, it is Rs. 15.00 lakh, loading/unloading policy cover.
THE next clause provides storage risk upto 56 days extra - repacking/bagging/storing and replacement, within 50 km radius. District Forum, however, on appreciation of pleadings of parties, while accepting claim of respondent Company, directed petitioner to refund Rs. 9,97,096 to the respondent and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 for harassment and mental agony caused. Even appeal preferred by Insurance Company did not find favour with State Commission which too, referring to Excess clause, held that it was applicable only when the goods were in transit on Per GR/Per Railway Wagon. Now, petitioner company is in revision.
THE plea of Insurance Company that after respondent company had executed Discharge Voucher, accepting settlement of claim for Rs. 28,51,237 against full and final settlement of claim, did not find favour with the State Commission and we may say rightly, regard being had to the status of Insurance Company in persuading the insured to come to its point, where there is no option, in view of financial stringencies faced by them. Though it is not the case of respondent but experience shows that since respondent company is running business largely on being financed by Banks, on payment of interest. There is nothing unusual that the insured, to avoid its liability in falling in arrears of instalments, easily succumbs to the proposal made by the insurer.
THE incorporation of excess clause manifestly suggests that though the risk cover is against loading/unloading and storage, incorporation of excess clause is only in respect of Per GR/Per Railway Wagon. This signifies that only when the consignment is in transit, i.e., in the Railway Wagon, only then excess clause for deduction of 1/2% was enforceable. After consignments were off-loaded and stored in a particular place, ostensibly the Excess clause would not be invoked. Both Fora below has given true literal interpretations of the Excess clause which did not authorise Insurance Company to make deduction of Rs. 9,97,096 from the sum of Rs. 38,48,333.17, settled between the parties. Concurrent finding of Fora below consequently did not warrant our interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed, but with no order as to cost.