M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. CHANNA COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, GURUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI Vs. M/S. RATAN EXPORTS & INDUSTRIES LTD. 8A/12 WEA, KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance Company ) is directed against the order dated 09.04.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short the State Commission ) in Complaint Case No. C-24/2004. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while accepting the claim made by the Complainant in its Complaint, in to, has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 30,59,555.00 as claimed under the insurance policy towards the actual loss and a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as compensation for the mental agony, including cost of litigation.

(2.) Since, on a bare reading of the impugned order, we are of the view that the said direction is not sustainable, as it does not record any reason in support of the final conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, in greater detail. It would suffice to note that the Complainant had preferred with the Insurance Company the afore-noted claim in respect of a consignment of 5766 cartons of canned fruit and 1290 cartons of assorted jam from Kolkata (Port of Lading) to Illychevsk, Russia under BoL No. MOS/1 dated 04.08.1992. The said consignment was covered under a Marine Open Insurance Policy, obtained by the Complainant from the Insurance Company for an assured sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000.00. However, when the consignment reached the Port of Destination, all the cartons were found damaged. Consequently, on the request of the consignee, a Surveyor was appointed to carry out quality and quantity survey of the consignment. On receipt of report of the Surveyor, wherein he had observed that the entire consignment had been damaged, the Complainant informed the Insurance Company about it and preferred the afore-noted claim.

(3.) The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss claimed to have been suffered by the Complainant. Although it appears from the record that some correspondence was exchanged between the Complainant and the Surveyor, wherein the Surveyor had observed that the requisite information, as sought for, had not been furnished by the Complainant, but evidently there was no response from the side of the Insurance Company on the said claim. Perhaps a stony silence on the part of the Insurance Company prompted the Complainant to issue a legal notice dated 28.05.2002 to the Insurance Company. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company chose not to respond to the same.