Ravindra Agrawal vs Oriental Insurance Company

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant-Mr. Ravindra Agarwal against the order dated 16.9.2014 of the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, ''the State Commission''), passed in Appeal No. 508 of 2012. 2. Brief fads of the case are that the petitioner''s firm namely, M/s. Radhe Gcvind Chemicals was involved in manufacturing of Sodium Silicate, which was being sent for use in the industry in the States of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. The petitioner had taken a marriage cargo open policy from the opposite party/respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for transporting the sodium silicate. The policy was effective from 30.6.2009 to 29.6.2010. Under the policy, the total coverage was Rs. 50 lakh and for one transit it was Rs. 1.5 lakh. On 2.6.2010, on the invoice No. 0165, 9000 metric ton sodium silicate was sent by the tanker No. C.G. 14/ZC/0172 to SPS Steel and Power Ltd., Kukurjangha, Post Barmal, Jharsuguda, Orissa. On the way, the tanker overturned and all the sodium silicate spilt out of the tanker and was destroyed. The total price of the sodium silicate along with tax was Rs. 72,904. The petitioner immediately informed the Insurance Company and sent all the papers and documents to them along with his claim. The claim was repudiated on 9.2.2011 on the basis of the survey report dated 10.12.2010 wherein the surveyor had intimated that the limit of Rs. 50 lakh under the policy was exhausted much earlier as the total transit of sodium silicate till the date of accident from the date of commencement of the policy was for Rs. 1,39,89,031. 3. The petitioner/complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (In short, "District Forum"), which was dismissed vide its order dated 12.9.2012. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the complainant/petitioner preferred the appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed vide its order dated 16.9.2014. 5. Hence this revision petition. 6. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused record. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the policy clause, each transit/voyage was to be declared to the Insurance Company it risk was to be covered by the company for chat voyage. Petitioner had only covered this risk five times and the last was on 2.6.2010 for which invoice No., tanker No. and all other details were declared and sent to the Insurance Co. as well as entered in the declaration book given by the Insurance Company. Learned State Commission has failed to consider the important fact that the complainant has not violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There was a clear proof that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 72.904 during this transaction 8. It is further stated by the learned Counsel that the State Commission has overlooked the important fact that the persons who are residing nearby and who are purchasing the sodium silicate in small quantity are taking the sodium silicate on their own expenses and by their transportation and at their own risk. Total responsibility of the said transaction is on the purchaser and if any loss occurs then for that loss the complainant is not responsible, but the person who has purchased is himself responsible. In such type of sale, there is no need for taking the insurance. Thus, the limit of Rs. 50 lakh provided in the policy cannot be considered as consumed or exhausted for such transactions. The State Commission has not correctly appreciated this point. 9. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that the State Commission has failed to consider that the complainant had to insure only that transaction wherein he was sending the sodium silicate to his customer under FOR. It means that if during transaction any loss occurred, then complainant is responsible and for this purpose only, the complainant had taken the Marine Cargo Policy under transit insurance. This fact has not been considered by the State Commission 10. Further, the learned Counsel argued that the State Commission has not considered the basic evidence of the declaration book that the Insurance Company had provided to the complainant in which the complainant was to declare the transaction which he was sending and asper this declaration book, the complainant has sent only five transactions. Thus the report of the surveyor has been wrongly accepted by the State Commission without any proof, rather, contrary proof existed. 11. We have carefully considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and have examined the policy and other records. It is important to note some important policy clauses which read as tinder: "Loss before Declaration Clause-The liability of insurers in the event of any loss before declaration, shall be limited to the prime cost, freight and other expenses actually incurred by the insured and for which the insureds are liable. Warranted that maximum value per dispatch shall not exceed the limit specified in the policy Rs. 1,50,000. Location Clause-Warranted that company''s liability in the event of any loss per location shall not exceed Rs. 150000. Declaration Clause (1)-All dispatches as per open policy provisions shall be individually declared to the insurer''s office in the order of dispatch without any omission. As per agreed format and periodically prescribed Declaration Clause (2)-Declaration made shall reduce the sum insured to the extent of value declared, insured shall monitor diminishing balance of • sum insured for timely increase, if required. Declaration Clause (3)-The policy shall cease on expiry of policy period or exhaustion of sum insured, originally agreed or enhanced subsequently, whichever shall first occur. Declaration Clause (4)-Declaration dispatches shall be covered subject to compliance of Section 64 vb." 12. From the above it is clear that ail the dispatches were to be declared to the Insurance Company. The petitioner is claiming that some of sale was to the local dealers and local industry that had taken themselves the sodium silicate and transported on their own risk and petitioner''s firm was not involved in covering their risk of transport. Petitioner''s case is that such sale or dispatches are not covered under the policy and they cannot be counted against the total insured value. Actual cases requiring coverage of risk under the policy were only five and the complainant had declared only five times to the Insurance Company and therefore total transported sodium silicate under the policy is much below Rs. 50 lakh. Hence, the present claim of Rs. 72,904 should have been allowed. However the surveyor has clearly stated in his report that the total assured sum was already exhausted much before the current accident and as per Declaration Clause (3), the policy had ceased and was not in existence on the date of accident and the claim was not payable. Though the surveyor report is quite clear in this regard, yet, even if we consider the argument of the learned Counsel, we find no document on record which reveals that how much sodium silicate was transported to customers on FOR basis and how much sodium silicate was locally sold. The petitioner has not even revealed the total quantity of these five transactions which he has admitted. Even in the memo of revision petition it has not been clarified as to how much sodium silicate out of total of Rs. 1,39,89,031 was sold locally and how much was transported to customers on FOR basis. In such situation, we find that the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation and interpretation of the evidence and terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, we find no merit in the revision petition. 13. Based on the above discussion, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.9.2014 of the State Commission which calls for any interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petition No. 4383 of 2014 - Ravinder Agraival v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is hereby dismissed in limine. Revision Petition Dismissed.