R MANI Vs. KARUMARI ENTERPRISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in complaint Number O.P. No. 458/93 filed by the present respondent No. 1 Karumali Enterprise. By the impugned Order the State Commission directed the present appellant R. Mani who was opposite party No. 3 in the complaint to pay Rs. 41,433/- the value of the consignment damaged/lost. The said amount is to carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 7th June, 1992 till payment. The present appellant was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony. The complaint as against opposite party Nos. 1,2, 4 & 5 who are respondents Nos. 2,3,4 & 5 herein was dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the complainant-Company before the State Commission was that they are manufacturer of chalk crayons and despatches goods to various parts of India. They have taken Marine Open Policy with the first opposite party New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 31st January, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. As soon as the consignment is despatched a declaration is made to the Insurer. On 7th June, 1992 the complainant sent a consignment of 405 cartons of chalk crayons to Rajamundry and Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh through lorry No. TDJ 7666 belonging to the Appellant i.e. the third opposite party through his Agent, second opposite party M/s. Jothi Transport. The fifth opposite party was the driver of the vehicle. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the lorry fell into a lake near Gopalapuram bridge on 8th June, 1992 and the entire consignment got wet and their value and utility was lost. The driver was prosecuted and fined. The complainant lodged a claim with the first opposite party-Insurer for the value of the consignment namely for Rs. 60,000/-. The complainant also sent notices to second, third and fourth opposite party. Fourth opposite party is said to be insurer of the lorry under a comprehensive policy of insurance. The first opposite party did not settle the claim on the ground that at the time of despatch of the consignment in question the cash balance of premium paid by the complainant was not sufficient to cover the risk. The complainant prayed for the award of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% against the opposite parties jointly and severally. He also claimed Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation.

(3.) THE first opposite party admitted the open Marine Insurance Policy but pleaded that the insured had to declare the value and the details of the consignment at the time of transit and obtain endorsement on the declaration. The corresponding premium dependent upon the value of declaration is adjusted. The premium amount for the sum insured has to be replenished periodically. On 16.4.92 the first opposite party informed the complainant that the credit balance of the deposit premium available was only Rs. 69.00 which would cover a corresponding sum insured to the extent of Rs, 24,500/-only. The complainant did not pay any premium to replenish the sum insured. On 10th June, 1992 the complainant sent a declaration to the first opposite party with a deposit of Rs. 840/- but as by that time the accident in question had already taken place, the first opposite party declined to accept the declaration and thus the policy did not cover the risk in respect of the consignment in question and hence the claim of the complainant was rejected.