JANANI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal by complainant arises from the order dated 28. 12. 2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in C. C. No. 727/2005 dismissing appellant's complaint claiming compensation Rs. 5,45,500 under a Marine Cargo Inland Transit Policy.

(2.) THE policy in question was obtained by appellant, a registered society dealing in manufacture and sale of condoms, from respondent the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for a period of one year from 9. 7. 2004 to 8. 7. 2005. The total sum assured was Rs. 50 lacs while limit per location and limit per transit was Rs. 3 lacs each. The case of the appellant before the District Forum was that it had on 1. 9. 2004 booked a consignment of 250 cases of condoms (9 lacs pieces) valuing Rs. 5,45,500 with the East India Transport Agency, a transport company at Bhopal for transport by road from Bhopal to Patna. A timely declaration of the said consignment was also given to respondent-Insurance Company on the same day i. e. 1. 9. 2004. The consignment in question was lost in transit and seemed to have been misappropriated by the driver or other employees of the said transport company. A written report of the incident was lodged with the Police Station Mangalwara, Bhopal on 8. 10. 2004 and an intimation of the loss was also given to the respondent-Insurance Company. The police after investigation has filed charge-sheet against certain persons and a complaint was also in the meantime was filed by the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal. Claim for reimbursement of the loss was lodged with the respondent-Insurance Company on 20. 9. 2004.

(3.) IT appears that the matter was got investigated by the appellant-Insurance Company by its two investigators namely Satish Telang and Pankaj Agrawal. While Mr. Telang vide his report dated 17. 8. 2005 confirmed the loss, but restricted the same to Rs. 3,00,000. Mr. Agrawal vide his report dated 12. 3. 2005 recorded no specific finding about the consignment in question, but confirmed that the consignments as stated in Annexure 1 of his report, which also included the consignment in question, were sold and dispatched outside Bhopal during the period from 9. 7. 2004 to 30. 9. 2004. However, the respondent-Insurance Company vide its letter dated 3. 11. 2005 repudiated the appellant's claim solely on the ground that the consignment in question was actually transported and lost on 25. 8. 2004 not on 1. 9. 2004.