AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,86,000/- with interest thereon from the opposite party - United INdia INsurance Company Ltd.
THE complainant is a registered firm carrying on business of oil extraction and its marketing thereof. The complainant obtained a marine insurance policy for ''Inland transit'' as per Ex. C 2 from the opposite party. The policy was for a period from 21.12.90 to 20.12.91, the insured amount was for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs with a condition that the value of each consignment should not exceed Rs. 3,50,000/-. Subsequently, the insured amount was enhanced to Rs. 39,00,336/-.
The complainant on receipt of an order for 10 tonnes of groundnut oil from Gujarat State Civil Supplies Co-operative Ltd., sent the said 10 tonnes of oil on 4.2.91 in a tanker bearing No. GJ- 6/T-5574 from Challakere to Gondal-Gujarat State. The said transhipment of the consignment was intimated to the opposite party, as per Ex. C 3. The aforesaid consignment was transported through M/s. Sree Krishna Bulk Carriers (Regd), Chitradurga - the transport contractor. The value of the said consignment was Rs. 3,80,000/-. The Gujarat State Civil Supplies Co-operative Ltd. did not receive the said consignment stating that it did not meet their specifications. The complainant, on receipt of the said information, deputed its clerk one Sri. K.L. Hemantraj Reddy to go over to Gondal, to get back the said oil from Gondal. The said tanker started its return journey alongwith the said Sri. K.L. Hemantraj Reddy, on 17.2.91 and when it was at about 11.30 p.m. near about Chotila, the driver of the tanker forced the said Sri. Hemantraj Reddy to get down and went away from there with the oil tanker. The said Sri. K.L.H. Reddy, immediately thereafter, made a complaint to the jurisdictional police about the occurrence who registered a case and took up the investigation. Sri. Hemantraj Reddy also informed the occurrence to the complainant at Challakere. The complainant on receipt of the said message immediately went to the place - Chotila, verified the occurrence and made a claim with the opposite party. The complainant, even though supplied all the relevant papers to the opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 29.10.91, as per Ex. C 15, stating that the return journey of the tanker and the rejected consignment was outside the purview of the policy. The complainant, thereafter, issued legal notice to the opposite party and filed the complaint seeking reimbursement of the loss sustained by him from the opposite party.
THE opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the complainant had obtained the marine insurance policy, as averred by the complainant. It averred that the oil sent by the complainant was rejected on the ground that it was contaminated and so such a consignment containing contaminated oil was not covered under any of the risk of the policy. It further averred that the complainant had committed willfully misconduct in dispatching a contaminated oil and so such liability is not covered under the policy. During enquiry, the complainant examined himself as C.W 1 and got Ex. C 1 to C 18 marked in evidence. The Regional Manager of the opposite party was examined as R.W 1 and got Ex. R 1 and R 2 marked in evidence.
WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained a marine insurance policy from the opposite party. It was for a sum of Rs. 39,05,336/-. It is also an admitted fact that during the currency of the said policy on 4.2.91, the complainant sent an oil tanker containing 10 tonnes of groundnut oil from Challakere in the State of Karnataka to Gondal in the State of Gujarat to Gujarat State Civil Supplies Co-operation Ltd. It is also an admitted fact that the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Co-operative Ltd. rejected the said consignment on the ground that the oil did not meet their specifications. It is also an admitted fact that the said oil was sent through the tanker bearing No. GJ.5-T/ 5574 through M/s. Sree Krishna Bulk Carriers - Transport Contractors - Chitradurga.
THE complainant had deputed his employee Sri Hemantraj Reddy, to get back the said oil tanker from Gondal. While returning, the said Hemantraj Reddy was forced to get down from the tanker at Chotila by the driver and the cleaner of the said tanker and the driver and the cleaner fled away with the tanker.
THE said employee, Sri Hemantraj Reddy, immediately thereafter filed a complaint about the occurrence to the Chotila Police Station, as per Ex. C 8 and C 9. THE complainant, in his evidence with regard to this aspect of the matter, has stated, thus: "THE police at Chotila informed us on phone that the tanker was traced at Khadasana in Rajasthan and required us to go over there to identify the said tanker. Chotila police also wrote a letter as per Ex. C 16 in this regard. THE police also informed us in the said letter, Ex. C 16, that they had recovered a sum of Rs. 69,000/- in Rajasthan and further sum of Rs. 75.000/- at Poona. I found at Chotila Police Station the police having arrested the owner, cleaner and also the driver. THEy told us that the tanker is seized by police in Rajasthan. THE police got the owner, driver and the cleaner identified at Police Station, Chotila." From this evidence, it is clear that the police in Chotila have recovered a sum of Rs. 69,000/- and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the driver and the cleaner in respect of the value of the oil, that is, they have recovered a total sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- from them.
The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant, as per Ex. C. 15, the said letter of repudiation, reads as under: "We would like to bring to your kind notice that the open policy issued to you does not envisage cover for returned / rejected items. We, therefore, regret our inability in entertaining your claim under reference as the returned/rejected consignments are outside the purview of the policy."
This would go to show that the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the consignment was rejected, so it was outside the purview of the policy. In our opinion, this view taken by the opposite party is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. The subject matter insured under the policy, Ex. C 2, shows that the consignment concerned should be of any kind of edible oil, such as groundnut oil, sunflower oil etc. Simply because the consignee refused to accept the consignment on the ground that the oil did not conform to their requirement, it cannot be said that such an oil is not covered under the policy.
ANOTHER ground urged for repudiation of the claim of the complainant that it did not cover the return journey of the oil from Gondal to Challakere. RW 1, the Manager of the opposite party has specifically stated in his evidence, thus: "The oil under the insurance coverage as per Ex. C 2 was groundnut oil, sunflower oil etc. This policy covers only edible oils. The return journey also is covered if the same oil and of the same quantity, is returned. In this case, it was repudiated because a rejected and contaminated oil was getting back."
The said witness, R.W 1, has further stated in his cross-examination, thus: "The policy in question covers theft, pilferage, non-delivery among other risks. The policy in question covers consignment from Challakere to anywhere in India and Vice Versa except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The police cover does not show the quality, quantity and purity or viscosity of the oil."
From this evidence, of the witness, it becomes clear that the insurance covers the return journey as well. So having regard to these facts we are constrained to hold that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
ONE of the conditions in the policy, Ex. C 2, is that the value of each consignment should not exceed Rs. 3,50,000/-. The complainant. though has stated that the value of oil sent under the said consignment was Rs. 3,80,000/-, but under the terms and conditions of the policy the value of each consignment should not exceed a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. So having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the complainant is entitled only to this insured sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The complainant himself has admitted that Chotila Police have already recovered a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/-, which it is the complainant who is entitled to get back the same. As per the policy the insured amount is Rs. 3,50,000/-, out of which the complainant would get a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- from the Police which they have seized from the culprits. Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- minus Rs. 1,44,000/-, that is, a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- from the opposite party. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party United India Insurance Company Ltd., is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- with interest thereon at 14% p.a. from 17.2.91 till the date of its payment to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant towards costs of this proceeding. The opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within 60 (sixty) days from this day. Complaint allowed in part with costs.