ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DHARMENDRA KUMAR LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of FA Nos. 365/2001 and 377/2001 which arise out of a common order dated 19.10.2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby opposite parties (respondents in FA 377/2001 and appellants in FA 365/2001) were directed to pay to the complainant (respondent in FA 365/2001 and appellant in FA 377/2001) Rs. 14,01,993.75 equivalent to US $ 41,667/- being the value of damaged handicraft items, Rs. 54,530/- towards airfare, Rs. 50,000/- expenses of stay of complainant between 19.9.1994 to 23.9.1994 at Athens, Rs. 3,500/- being the expenses incurred by complainant for going to Bombay, Rs. 7,233/- spent by the complainant to contact the insurance authorities and Seascan Services Ltd., Surveyors, Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation besides cost of Rs. 10,000/-. In FA No. 365/2001, opposite parties seek setting aside of the said order dated 19.10.2001. In FA No. 377/2001, complainant seeks enhancement of amount as claimed in para No. 20 of the complaint with interest @ 15% p.a.

(2.) Complainant is an exporter of handicraft items. On receiving order dated 18.3.1994 from M/s. Epiplo S.A. of Athens (Greece), he despatched various handicraft items to it. Insurance coverage of items from the warehouse of complainant at Jodhpur to the terminal point of said buyer in Athens for Rs. 35 lakhs was obtained from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./opposite party on 21.7.1992. Items were packed in 354 boxes and before despatch were inspected, by the representative(s) of insurance company. Complainant alleged that the value of handicraft items despatched in US $ was 1,02,196/- and during transit items worth US $ 41,668/- equivalent to Rs. 14,01,993.75 were damaged. Despite efforts of complainant to get the damaged items assessed, insurance company did not depute any Surveyor in Athens. Damaged items were re-despatched from Athens to Bombay on 14.12.1994. On claim being repudiated by insurance company, by the letter dated 4.4.1995, a complaint was filed claiming a total sum of Rs. 70,32,190.75, the break-up whereof is given in para No. 20 of the complaint. Opposite parties contested the complaint by filing written version.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. A.K. Raina for opposite parties was that the alleged damaged items for the purpose of valuation were not got inspected by the complainant or the buyer either at Athens by M/s. Koralsios Maritime Company Ltd., Claim Settling Agent at Athens or by M/s. Seascan Service Private Ltd. at Bombay and without valuation of loss, the State Commission was not justified in awarding amount of Rs. 14,01,993.75 towards the damage caused to handicraft items. Reference to the letters dated 1.10.1994, 22.9.1994, 15.11.1994, 12/21.11.1994, 25.1.1995, 7.2.1995, 18.2.1995 exchanged between the parties and credit note of consignee (copy at p. 135 in FA 365/2001) is necessary to appreciate the said submission. Letter dated 1.10.1994 was sent by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 informing that handicraft items worth US $ 41,668/- covered by insurance policy dated 21.7.1994 were damaged during transit from Bombay at Athens. Letter dated 22.9.1994 was sent by the consignee/buyer to opposite party No. 3 mentioning that the value of broken items was US $ 41,668. Letter dated 15.11.1994 was issued pursuant to personal discussion and telephonic conversation with the complainant, by opposite party No. 1 intimating that M/s. Koralsios Maritime Co. Ltd., 100, Kolokloroli's Street, Pireeus, Greece was its Claim Settling Agent at Athens. Letter dated 12/21.11.1994 was sent by opposite party No. 1 in continuation of letter dated 15.11.1994 wherein fax number of said Claim Settling Agent was given. Letter dated 25.1.1995 was also written by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Omitting immaterial portion, this letter which is material, reads thus: