1.       Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company.

2.       The appeal is reported to be beyond time by two days. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay stands condoned and the appeal is treated to having been filed within time.

3.       The matter has been lingering before this Commission and directions were issued after the appeal came to be amended to file written synopsis. During the Covid period the matter could not be heard and it has now arrived for admission.

4.       The claim is with regard to the damage caused to the idol of Hanumanji that was to be transported to Chicago in the United States of America. The same was damaged and a claim was lodged before the Insurance Company which seems to have been repudiated by the letter dated 06.05.2010 which is extracted below:

     “Dear Mr. Salwan,

We refer to the captioned mater and regret to inform you that the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The cargo insurer has decided to decline your claim as per the following reasons:

The shipment in question is covered under Institute Cargo Clauses (B), a restrictive coverage which only covers direct physical damage/ loss arsing from named perils during transit in Section One of the policy, (Risk Covered). For your ready reference, a copy of the I.C.C. (B) provisions is enclosed.

As you will perceive that none of the named perils risks has materialized to trigger the coverage, therefore, the insurers have no alternative but to reject the claim.

Furthermore, physical findings by our representative revealed that the packaging and the securing methods utilized by the shipper/ insured for the 18’’ tall Moorti Hanuman were considered inadequate for this type of cargo to prevent the shifting of the cargo within the container during normal transit rigors.

Therefore, even if one or more of the named perils named in the coverage section had happened, “your claim would have been excluded by the article 4.3 of the exclusion under ICC (B) namely loss of damage or expense caused by insufficient or unsuitability of packing or preparation of the subject matter insured for the purpose of this clause 4.3 “packing” shall be deemed to include stowage in a container of liftvan but only when such stowage is carried out prior to attachment of this insurance or by the Assured (shipper)or their servants.”

For your ready reference, we also attach herewith the copies of insurance certificate and relevant pages of the survey report for your review.

If you have comments, or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. In the meantime, the insurers reserve the rights and defense under the terms of the policy and applicable law.”

5.       The reasons given are categorical including inadequate packing of the consignment. Reliance was also placed on the restrictive cover policy as well as exclusionary clause. Hence aggrieved complaint case no. 108 of 2011 was filed claiming damages as well as the entire sum assured which was to the tune of Rs.20,16,360/-. The complaint came to be disposed of in the year 2018 vide order dated 10.12.2018 with a direction that the complaint deserved to be allowed for settling the claim on non-standard basis.

6.       Aggrieved by the partial relief granted, the complainant preferred this appeal which was instituted on 21.01.2019.

7.       The relief prayed for is enhancement and interest on the delayed payment but during the course of submissions learned counsel submits that it is only the interest part that he is pressing in this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal a cheque for an  amount of Rs.15,12,225/- has been tendered, however, the said cheque had to be returned, whereafter the amount was directly transferred to the account of the appellants.

8.       Having considered the submissions raised since the principal amount is settled no useful purpose would be served now to continue this appeal so as to satisfy the entire claim that has been directed to be settled on non-standard basis which the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends is 75% of the amount. No further contest is raised on this count. The findings recorded by the State Commission do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to accept any enhancement of the claim.

9.       The only question now remains is the payment of interest which the appellant claims from the date of claim itself. In the considered opinion of this Bench, the interest part can be modified to the extent that the same would be payable @ 6% simple interest on the amount paid from the date of the order of the State Commission i.e. 10.12.2018 till the date the interest is actually paid in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that is not to be treated as a precedence.

10.     The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification. The amount of interest so calculated may be transferred by the Insurance Company directly to the complainant’s account as was done previously within a month.