BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
(ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 76/2018
1. | M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Being rep.by its M.D., Regd. Office : 201-208, Crystal Plaza, Opp. Infiniti Mall, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058, Maharashtra, India. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office : 201-208, Crystal Plaza, Opp. Infiniti Mall, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058, Maharashtra, India. | |
3. | M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Manager/MD, No.7/3, 2nd Floor, K.V.D. Towers, Old Madras Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 058. Now rep. by its Manager, M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No. EL 94, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710. (By Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth) | |
V/s
Pramitha Enterprises, Being rep. by its Proprietor, Mt. B. Shashi Kumar Shetty, S/o Late B.R. Shetty, Aged about 50 years, “ Prawal ”, No.20, 5th Main, Sarvabhoma Nagar Post, Bangalore. (By Sri S.F.M) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.07.2017 passed in CC.No.1992/2012 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he had obtained insurance policy bearing No.2427/51308022/00/000 dt.31.03.2011 from the Opposite Party No.1 towards transportation of PVC Vanes and the maximum insurance coverage of risk was Rs.5,61,706/-. Such being the case, on 19.07.2011 the complainant imported PVC Vanes from Brazil for his own self consumption vide invoice No.F1/WFD/763 dt.29.06.2011, engaged the service of Synergy Cargo Management (1) Pvt. Ltd. After import of PVC Vanes, he noticed that PVC Vanes for vertical blinds in 89 MM was damaged along with the external physical damages to the container. The damaged PVC Vanes for vertical blinds in 89 MM cannot be put to any use by the complainant due to which he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. By virtue of the policy, the complainant informed the Opposite Party and claimed for the loss suffered by him during transit. The Opposite Party instead of settling the claim had repudiated on the ground that the damage which occurred to the said PVC Vanes was caused by risk/peril which is not covered under the policy and the damage to PVC Vanes occurred due to jerks resulting into scratching, bending of blinds, hence, repudiated the claim. Being not satisfied with the repudiation, the complainant approached the District Commission by filing a complaint. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest and costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, there is no dispute that the complainant had obtained a policy towards the goods in transport from Brazil to India. There is also not in dispute that the said PVC Vanes were damaged during transit. After the claim made by the respondent, the appellants appointed a surveyor to estimate the loss wherein he suggested the loss to be payable by the appellants to the tune of Rs.43,457/- minus Rs.5,000/- policy excess and arrived for a payment of Rs.38,457/- and also noticed that in the head of cause for damage, he pointed out that the damage of PVC Vanes in detail and confirmed the damage has occurred during transit journey only and the cause of loss falls under the purview of the policy and does not fall under any exclusion and suggested for payment of the said amount. After receipt of the said report, the respondents have again appointed another surveyor to notice the cause of damage. The said second surveyor has submitted a report on 28.06.2011 who suggested that out of two box in parcel found in a crushed condition. Basing on the said report, appellants repudiated the claim that the said damage was fall under the exclusion clause and shown inability to pay the amount claimed by the respondent. The grounds for repudiation of the claim definitely amount to deficiency in service. The first surveyor has categorically mentioned that the damage was caused during transit journey only and assessed a loss to the tune of Rs.43,456/- excluding Rs.5,000/- policy excess amounts to Rs.38,457/- which is according to us is genuinely payable to the complainant. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in repudiating the abovesaid claim on flimsy grounds. When we noticed the order passed by the District Commission, the District Commission directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. The District Commission had totally allowed the complaint without considering the survey report. The surveyor has assessed the loss after inspection whereas the respondent made a claim without any basis. The District Commission made an error in awarding the full claim amount made by the respondent, accordingly, the order requires to be modified. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is disposed-of.
The Order dt.20.07.2017 passed in CC.No.1992/2012 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby modified as under;
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.38,457/- to the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realization.
Further Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation an dRs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.
The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days time from this date to comply the order.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
