DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed against No.1 National Insurance Company Ltd. and No.2 Associated Road Carriers Ltd. , New Delhi in respect of damage to the consignment which was insured with No.1 during transportation by No.2 from Ernakulam to the New Allenberry Works, Faridabad on the ground of deficiency in service on account of rejection of the claim filed by the complainant for reimbursement of the damage caused to the consignment which was covered by transit insurance with No.1.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. Briefly stated the New Allenberry Works, Faridabad placed an order for the supply of an HMT CNC Turning Centre STC 25 machinery which was despatched from Ernakulam on 12th of February, 1990. On receipt of the despatch advice the New Allenberry Works approached the Faridabad Office of the Insurance Company on 14-2-1990 for issue of a policy for covering any loss or damage during transit. The requisite premium was paid and the said policy was issued on 14.2.1990. However, the risk coverage has been shown to be from 12.2.1990 during transit from Ernakulam to Faridabad. It is alleged by the complainant that on receipt of the consignment at Faridabad although the packing was outwardly undamaged, on opening the package it was discovered that the machinery had been damaged during transit. Therefore, immediately information was sent to the Insurance Company as well as to M/s. H. M. T. Ltd. who both deputed their personnel to check the damage. The insurer also appointed a Surveyor to make an assessment of the damage and the said damage was assessed at Rs.4,55,671/-. Accordingly a claim was filed with the company but the said insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that it had not been established that any damage was caused to the machinery during transit. The complainant has stated that the claim has been unjustifiably rejected by the insurer and hence they are liable to pay the assessed amount alongwith interest and compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

(3.) Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties, who denied their liability for any damage. The main stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2 was that the consignment was delivered to the complainant in sound condition and utmost care and safety had been exercised during, the journey and there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the carrier in this case. It is significant to observe that this point was not contested by the complainant and no evidence was led to show that any negligence of the carrier had resulted in damage to the machinery. The complainant, therefore, pursued its claim against the insurer only.