VARDHMAN EXPORTS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dismissed CC No.99 of 2008 filed by the Complainant Appellant. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company for not indemnifying the claim of the Complainant stated to be arising out of a loss that was covered under a Marine Cargo Open Policy for supply of a consignment of medicines by the Complainant to any destination in India, in the present case to Guwahati, Assam, with an all risk transit coverage.

(2.) The present Appeal has been filed by the Complainant questioning the correctness of the decision of the SCDRC dtd. 5/12/2012 contending that the repudiation of the claim is founded on a Surveyor's report that fails to take notice of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, and was otherwise a report that was relied on to repudiate the claim without putting the Complainant Appellant to notice about the recommendations made by the Surveyor. The details of the context shall be dealt with hereinafter but to begin with the Appeal will have to be assessed in the backdrop of the reasons of repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company vide its letter dtd. 31/1/2008.

(3.) The facts of the controversy are that the Complainant Appellant is a trader in Pharmaceuticals that received a purchase order on 6/7/2007 from a procurement agency, M/s. Rites Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana calling upon the Appellant to supply a consignment of medicines described in the order of the consignee namely the Assistant Director General (MS), Government Medical Store Depot, A. K. Azad Road, Guwahati. The supply was to the health department of the Central Govt. in Assam.