GUPTA TEXTILE MILLS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While deciding four complaints bearing Nos.52 to 55 of 2000 filed by M/s. Gupta Textile Mills V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, by one common order dated 30.10.2003, the President of the District Forum, Sonepat had accepted the complaints. The other two Members of the District Forum as per common order dated 31.10.2003 had differed with the decision of the President of the District Forum by coming to the conclusion that the complicated questions of fact and law are involved in these complaints and further voluminous nature of evidence would be required to decide the dispute raised which cannot be decided in a summary jurisdiction of the District Forum and for that reason dismissed the complaints giving liberty to the complainants in all these cases to approach the Civil Court for the appropriate reliefs. Against these orders, above mentioned four appeals have been filed which are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The complainants in all these four cases sent 1200 mosquito nets in 60 bales against cover note No.2861, 2450 mosquito nets against cover note No.2859, 1650 mosquito nets against cover note No.2860 and 1000 mosquito nets against cover note No.2862 of the value of Rs.4,89,210, Rs.9,98,816, Rs.6,72,672 and Rs.78,400 respectively to the consignee detailed in the complaints from Gohana to destinations namely Rourkela, Dhanbad, Durg and Mukameghat through Railways. These goods were insured under Marine policy with the opposite party covering risk from stage of despatch to the stage of delivery. At the time of delivery after taking consignment, the consignee found mosquito nets damaged as detailed in these complaints. The total loss amounts come to be Rs.2,44,608, Rs.93264, Rs.5,13,520 and Rs.22,344 in respect of the above stated four consignments respectively. The damage was immediately reported to the opposite party by the complainants but finding no response from them, the present complaints were instituted by the complainants for awarding them claimed amount to the extent of actual loss/damage caused to these goods along with interest @ 24% per annum from the dates of consignments mentioned in the complaints, besides compensation of Rs.50,000 each on account of mental agony and harassment faced by them.

(3.) The complaints were contested by the opposite parties primarily on the ground that no loss report was sent to them within the stipulated period as per terms of the policies issued. They also raised objection that the complainants had not lodged any claim with the railway authorities and even no notice for the loss caused had been served upon them and for that reason they are not liable to reimburse the loss or damage caused to the goods. Their other objection was that in these complaints the company had received the intimation from the consignee regarding the loss or damage to the goods on 14.10.1998, 17.11.1998, 29.1.1999 and 14.1.1998 but intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party on 1.3.1999 whereas as per terms and conditions of the policy, the loss was required to be reported to the company immediately. Thus, they maintained that there was no deficiency of service on their part and for that reason prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.