NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BHAGCHANDKA HOME APPLIANCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) admittedly the appellant had issued an Inland Transit (Rail or Road) Insurance Policy in favour of the respondent. Vide impugned order dated 10.1.1997 passed by the District Forum it has been directed to compensate the respondent a sum of Rs.1,12,401/- towards cost of 90 pieces of pressure cooker which were found to be lost on arrival of the consigment with interest @ 18% from the date of loading of the consignment until the payment besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment the respondent suffered. The impugned order has been challenged through this appeal solely on the basis of Clause 5 of insurance policy, which is as under: clause 5: Duration: 5. This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the warehouse and/or the store at the place named in the policy for the commencement of transit and continues during the ordinary course of transit including customary transhipment, if any (i) until delivery to the final warehouse at the destination named in the policy; or (ii) in respect of transits by rail only or rail and road, until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the railway wagon at the final destination railway station or (iii) in respect of transits by road only until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the vehicle at the destination town named in the policy, whichever shall first occur. N. B.1. The period of 7 days referred to above shall be reckoned from the midnight of the day of arrival of railway wagon at the destination railway station or vehicle at the destination town named in the policy.

(2.) Transit by rail only shall include incidental transit by road performed by railway authorities to or from railway out-agency.2. The factum of the consignment having been dispatched vide G. R. No.017187 dated 13.1.1993 to Calcutta through M/s. Kanpur Delhi Goods Carrier (P) Ltd. under Marine Transit Policy in question issued by the appellant as well as its arrival at Calcutta on 6.3.1993 is not in dispute. According to the respondent he was informed for the first time on 23.3.1993 by the transporter that the consignment was short by 90 pieces containing the pressure cooker. The respondent immediately informed the appellant about the shortage and requested for the appointment of the Surveyor. Accordingly the Surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss at Rs.1,09,001/-. The respondent preferred the claim but it was repudiated by invoking the above referred Clause 5 according to which the duration of the policy subsists for 7 days after the arrival of the goods at destination and since in this case the goods reached on 6.3.1993 and the delivery was taken on 23.3.1993 and since the policy in question ceased to be in operation after 13.3.1993, the appellant was not liable to accept the claim of the respondent.

(3.) The main controversy from the aforesaid facts is whether the aforesaid Inland Transit (Rail or Road) Insurance Policy Clause A containing the provision in the form of Clause 5 was part of the insurance policy and was furnished to the respondent at the time of issuing cover note or not. The respondent has placed a covering note and important notice attached and no other documents. According to the Counsel for the appellant this document is enclosed or appended as on endorsement with the policy and in the covering note itself Clause 18 refers to this endorsement, which was tick-marked in the covering note itself. However, during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum the said Inland Transit (Rail or Road) Insurance Policy Clause A did not form part of the documents filed by the appellant and merely because on the covering note Clause 18 relating to Inland Transit (Rail or Road) Insurance Policy Clause A was tick-marked did not mean that respondent was apprised of this document. Until and unless the consumer is provided the information as to circumstance under which the policy would subsist and claim would be acceptable the consumer cannot be denied the benefit of the insurance cover.