ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. GANPATI FOODS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 174/2008. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the petitioner Insurance Company against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Karnal in complaint case No. 533 /2006 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount as per the assessment of the Surveyor, i.e. Rs. 6,09,648. The State Commission dismissed the appeal referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Economic Transport Organisation v. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr., 2010 2 SLT 44 = Civil Appeal No. 5611 of 1999 decided on 17.2.2010, which had no application to the facts of the present case. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The complainant had taken an open policy and had transported around 29,000 kg. of rice bran oil through the respondent No. 2 carrier. The tanker containing the carrier met with an accident, which resulted into the loss of the rice bran oil besides the damage to the vehicle. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss towards the rice bran oil at Rs. 6,09,468 but the Insurance Company having regard to the position that the tanker was overloaded at the time of peril, i.e., it was containing rice bran oil weighing 296.75 quintals as against the carrying capacity of 16,000 kg. wanted to settle the claim at 50% of the loss assessed by the Surveyor, i.e., at Rs. 3,04,734 and the amount was offered to the complainant, which was not acceptable to the complainant. The District Forum held that the overloading of the tanker had no nexus with the cause of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not justified in reducing the amount of claim.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company, Mr. Madhurendera Kumar, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 /complainant and Mr. Suresh Bharti, Counsel for respondent No. 2/ M/s. Pawa Brokers Private Ltd. and have considered their submissions.

(3.) Mr. Kishore Rawat would assail the orders passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that strictly going by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company and the breach committed by the complainant/carrier, the Insurance Company had a good case to refute the insurance claim altogether but having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company as a. goodwill gesture wanted to settle the claim on non-standard basis at 50% of the assessed amount and, therefore, the Fora below were not justified in allowing the complaint and granting the full assessed amount. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents fully support the orders passed by the Foras below.