Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/291/2015

M/s Hitech Light Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Sharma

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/291/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	15/05/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	25/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Hitech Light Limited, Plot No. 315-316, Phase-IX, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab, through its Director Sh. R.S. Sachdeva.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 124-125, 1^st Floor, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

[2]  HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, 165-166, Back Bay Reclamation, H.T. Park Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 through its M.D.

 

[3]  HDFC Bank Limited, SCO 78-79, Sector 8, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SMT.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Hitender Kansal, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 and 2	:	Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant company which deals in Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), got a Marine Open Policy (Annexure C-2) from Opposite Party No.1 for coverage on consignments i.e. CFL glass Tube, Plastic Parts of CFL, PCB Components and CFL machinery from anywhere in the World to anywhere in India. It has been averred that the Complainant Company imported Burner Glass (Glass Tube of CFL) from China Shipment port (Shanghai to Nava Sheva, India) and the consignment contained 700 cartons of CFL Lamp Burner 45W (Spiral) and each carton contained 50 Pcs, 340 cartons of CFL Lamp Burner 65W (Spiral) and each carton contained 50 Pcs and 138 cartons of Plastic Body Sets containing 52000 sets. The value of the consignment was USD 39,920/- vide invoice dated 10.01.2015 (Annexure C-4). Thereafter from Mumbai to Nalagarh, the consignment was received in two trucks of Cargo Carriers India (Regd). When the consignment was being unloaded from the trucks on 15.01.2015, it was found that the material was broken and damaged, upon which employees of the Complainant Company immediately stopped unloading. As the material/ consignment was insured under the aforesaid Marine Policy, the Opposite Parties were requested to immediately depute a Surveyor to assess the loss vide e-mail dated 15.01.2015. The Complainant Company submitted the Claim Form along with all the requisite documents to Opposite Parties seeking indemnification of the loss sustained by it. However, the Opposite Parties closed the claim of the Complainant as ‘no claim’ vide e-mail dated 9.2.2015 stating that the loss did not fall within the scope of the policy (Annexure C-10). Hence, this Complaint.  

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their reply have admitted that upon receipt of information they appointed Cunningham Lindsey International Insurance as Surveyors for assessing the loss who duly inspected the premises and gave its report regarding the loss incurred by the Complainant. It has been pleaded that the insurance is for the purpose of insuring the goods to be imported by the Complainant to India and not for the purpose of insuring the goods to be transported from one place to another only in India. The loss involved in this case is of CFL Glasses which comes under the purview of ‘glass and fragile’ items and hence are strictly governed by ITC (B) clause which is standard in nature. Therefore, since no peril of ITC (B) has occurred during inland transit, the damage to the consignment does not trigger any insurance claim. Hence the claim has rightly been repudiated by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is only trying to brow beat knowing very well that the loss was not covered as per the policy conditions. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has pleaded that the Complainant failed to shows any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3. It has been submitted that the Complaint is false, malicious and incorrect and an abuse of process of law. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.

 

6.      The Complaint of the Complainant is only based upon interpretation of insurance policy. The Complainant in his Complaint has submitted that all exports/ imports are covered under ICC(A), ICC(B) or ICC(C) clause and not under ITC(B) clause of the Marine Insurance Policy. We have perused Annexure C-2 which is a Marine Open Policy issued by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. The terms of cover include all risk as per ICC ‘A’ clauses and War and SRCC as applicable CIF imports: ITC ‘B’ + SRCC. It also contains Special Conditions i.e. for imported shipments purchased on CIF basis, where the risk is originating from any Indian port, the coverage will be as per ITC(B)+SRCC only and all glass & fragile items will be covered as per ITC(B) Perils. As found above, the policy very clearly states that imports shall be as per ITC(B)+SRCC peril. It is also stated that all glass and fragile items will be covered as per ITC(B) perils. This has been duly accepted by the Complainant and has never been disputed or questioned. The loss involved in this case is of CFL Glasses which comes under the purview of glass and fragile items and hence are strictly governed by ITC(B) clause which is standard in nature. Therefore, since no peril of ITC(B) has occurred during the inland transit, the damage to the consignment does not trigger any insurance claim. Hence the claim has rightly been repudiated by the Opposite Party.

 

7.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

8.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th February, 2016                                           

                                                      Sd/-  

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER