UTTAM STEEL LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant had taken Marine Cargo Policy inrespect of consignment of 5000 metric tons of Prime Hot Rolled Steel Sheets shipped from Novorossiysk, Black Sea Port to Khapoli, Maharashtra for a sum of Rs. 5,10,12,500 (US$ 13,25,000). Policy covered risks as per Institute Cargo Clause-C [ICC (C)] plus Theft, Pilferage and Non-delivery (TPND) apart from War/SRCC risk w.e.f. 30.8.1996 to 29.8.1997. The consignment was shipped on or about 2.11.1996 in vessel M.V. "Grand Coral" under Bill of Lading dated 14.10.1996. The aforesaid consignment arrived at Port of Hazira in State of Gujarat on or about 20.12.1996 and was expected to arrive at Bombay Port on or about 25/27.1.1997. By fax dated 20.12.1996 from M/s. Mulla & Mulla (Solicitors & Advocates), Bombay complainant was informed that the said vessel had been arrested by them on behalf of their clients, the Mortgagee Bank and enquired whether the complainant would take delivery of consignment at Hazira. On 21.12.1996 the complainant informed Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Agents of the Charters that they would take delivery of their consignment at Bombay. M/s. Mullla & Mulla informed the complainant to apply to the Court to bring the vessel to Bombay. After negotiations it was agreed that the complainant shall take delivery of the cargo at Hazira and the said fact was informed to M/s. Mulla & Mulla. In the meantime Mortgagee Bank had moved the Court to bring the vessel to Bombay. On or about 26/27.1.1997 the vessel ran away by breaking the orders of arrest of the Bombay High Court. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the vessel were not known and the complainant approached International Maritime Lawyer, M/s. Narichania & Narichania for tracing the vessel through their overseas associate lawyers in Karachi, Beijing (China), London, Singapore and Piraeus (Greece). The matter was also taken up with opposite party's Overseas Claim Settling Agents, M/s. W.K. Webster & Company and the said Company vide letter dated 17.2.1997 addressed to the opposite party had confirmed that the vessel had changed its name to "Irish" and that they believe it unlikely that the vessel would deliver the cargo under the Bill of Lading to the complainant. In the meantime complainant's Advocate received information that the vessel had not reached Singapore until 18.2.1997. Since there was no news of the where abouts of the vessel, M.V. Grand Coral, complainant requested opposite party by letter dated 3.3.1997 to settle their claim for non-delivery of the consignment under the policy of insurance. Later on it was confirmed that the vessel was indeed anchored at Singapore and this fact was confirmed by M/s. Khattar Wong & Partners to Advocates M/s. Narichania & Narichania. Complainant instructed Advocates, M/s. Narichania & Narichania to take steps for arrest of the vessel at Singapore and secure delivery of the cargo for dispatch to Bombay. The Overseas Advocates in Singapore took steps including arrest of the vessel, unloaded and got delivery and fixed onward vessel to Bombay. The consignment ultimately arrived at Bombay in vessel M/s. Ravidas arranged through Shipping Corporation of India.

(2.) According to the complainant, they had taken all steps in order to minimise the loss for the eventual non-delivery of the consignment at Hazira/Bombay and in this process considerable expense was incurred in respect of which a claim was preferred for Rs. 99,19,560 with the opposite party vide letter dated 30.4.1997. The details of the claim made by the complainant are as under:

(3.) The opposite party vide letter dated 6.5.1998 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the expenses incurred were not due to the operation of any peril covered under the policy. According to the complainant, by virtue of non-delivery clause of T.P.N.D. the opposite party is liable to pay the expenses incurred for steps taken to minimise the loss. Besides this reliance was placed by the complainant on Clauses 12,16,18 of the Institute of Cargo Clauses attached to the Marine Policy Insurance Cover in support of the claim.