Narendra Kawde, Member
1. All these appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.176/2007, 177/2007, 178/2007, 179/2007, 180/2007, orders dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.181/2007, 182/2007 and 183/2007 and orders dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.184/2007, 185/2007, 186/2007, 187/2007, 188/2007 and 189/2007 by the South Mumbai District Forum (herein after referred as âDistrict Forum in short). All the consumer complaints are dismissed by the District Forum and, therefore, original complainants/appellants preferred these appeals which are disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been filed separately against each impugned order on the ground that the deficiency in service on the part of respondent/National Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as âInsurance Co.) was not properly appreciated by the District Forum though the cargo i.e. chemicals (Acetic Acid Glacial/Vinyl Acetate Monomer) were shipped from the load port i.e. Singapore to JNPT Port/Navi Mumbai/Kandla, Gujarat and Mumbai were received in short quantity in each container and the shortage was assessed by the surveyor engaged by the appellant.
2. Further, it is also the ground averred in the appeals that appointment of authorized surveyor under section 64 UM(1) of Insurance Act is a lame excuse on the part of respondent/Insurance Company, though the Insurance Company was intimated prior to submitting the insurance claim about the loss on account of shortage on receipt of the chemicals at ports of destination referred to above. The respondent/Insurance Company unnecessarily prolonged in deciding the claim in each of the consumer complaints and, finally, repudiated insurance claim payable under insurance policies issued by opponent/ Insurance Company subscribed by appellant to provide transit insurance cover to chemical consignment, as averred in the appeals.
3. Admitted facts are that the appellant company has subscribed to Insurance policies for each of the shipment of the chemicals (Acetic Acid Glacial/ Vinyl Acetate Monomer) to provide insurance cover for the transit period from Load port (Singapore) to port of destination (JNPT, Navi Mumbai/Kandla, Gujarat and Mumbai) mentioned in each of the consumer complaint separately as summarized herein below:-
| Sr.No.and Appeal no. | Policy No. | Sum Assured in Rs. | Chemical | Quantity (MTS) | Port of destination |
| 1.A/11/532 | 260600/21/06/4300000118 | 2,92,21,500/- | Acetic Acid Glacial | 999.879 | JNPT Port |
| Â 2.A/11/533 | 260600/21/06/4300000130 | 2,92,21,500/- | Acetic Acid Glacial | 1048.936 | JNPT Port |
| 3.A/11/534 | 260600/21/05/4300000488 | 4,14,41,400/- | Acetic Acid Glacial | 1468.852 | JNPT Port |
| 4.A/11/535 | 260600/21/06/4300000036 | 2,53,33,200/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 629.853 | Kandla Port |
| 5.A/11/536 | 260600/21/06/4300000092 | 2,57,77,950/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 629.771 | Kandla Port |
| 6.A/11/537 | 260600/21/06/4300000132 | 3,32,61,690/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 734.449 | Kandla Port |
| 7.A/11/538 | 260600/21/06/4300000091 | 2,66,51,000/- | Acetic Acid Glacial | 1049.834 | JNPT Port |
| 8.A/11/539 | 260600/21/06/4300000120 | 2,37,59,350/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 499.564 | Kandla Port |
| 9.A/11/540 | 260600/21/06/4300000479 and 260600/21/06/ 4300000480 | 2,74,98,240/- and6,41,82,400/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 2098.350 | Kandla Port |
| 10.A/11/541 | 260600/21/06/4300000048 | 1,68,88,800/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 419.902 | Kandla Port |
| 11.A/11/542 | 260600/21/05/4300000438 | 3,02,54,840/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 734.897 | Kandla Port |
| 12.A/11/543 | 260600/21/06/4300000047 | 2,53,33,200/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 629.853 | Mumbai |
| 13.A/11/544 | 260600/21/06/4300000139 | 2,85,10,020/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 629.792 | Kandla Port |
| 14.A/11/545 | 260600/21/05/4300000389 | 4,24,28,100/- | Vinyl Acetate Monomer | 1049.941 | Kandla Port |
5. Heard Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Ld.Advocate along with Mr.P.B.Kadam-Ld.Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Sanjay Mhatre-Ld.Advocate for the respondent and perused record of each case placed before us.
6. Appeal no.A/11/532:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/532 is preferred against order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.176/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Acetic Acid Glacial) reached the port of destination i.e. at J.N.P.T., Navi Mumbai on 30/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 11.988 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 9.488 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 2,52,102/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced by the appellant company to show that immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent /Insurance Company of not receiving such intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged on 02/07/2006 and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 28/08/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 2,63,326/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable since attracts provision of exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage about the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions, or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 30/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/ complainant was carried out on 06/07/2006 without notice to other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 28/08/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Therefore, this averment of the appellant is unfounded who failed to keep informed of the loss to respondent in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Appeal no.A/11/533:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/533 is preferred against order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.177/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Acetic Acid Glacial) reached the port of destination i.e. at J.N.P.T., Navi Mumbai on 18/07/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 8.650 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 6.03 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,60,187/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced by the appellant company to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent -Insurance Company of not receiving such intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged on 19/07/2006 and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 30/08/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,71,411/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable since attracts provision of exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage about the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 18/07/2006. Survey by the appellant/ complainant was carried out on 30/07/2006 without notice to other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 30/08/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Therefore, this averment of the appellant is unfounded who failed to keep informed of the loss to respondent in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Appeal no.A/11/534:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/534 is preferred against order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.178/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Acetic Acid Glacial) reached the port of destination i.e. at J.N.P.T., Navi Mumbai on 07/04/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 12.916 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 9.289 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 2,56,376/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged (disposed off) on 11/04/2006 and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 06/07/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 2,81,113/- (inclusive of Rs. 24,737/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/ Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable since it attracts provision of exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage about the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions and/or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 07/04/2006. Survey by the appellant/ complainant was carried out on 11/04/2006 without notice to other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 06/07/2006. Therefore, this averment of the appellant is unfounded, who failed to keep informed of the loss to respondent in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. Appeal no.A/11/535:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/535 is preferred against order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.179/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 10/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 5.418 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 3.844 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,64,446/-. According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 13/07/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,70,058/- (inclusive of Rs. 5,612/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim is not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 10/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out on 20/06/2006 without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 13/07/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. Appeal no.A/11/536:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/536 is preferred against order dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.180/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 13/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 2.877 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 1.303 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 56,042/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 26/12/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 61,654/- (inclusive of Rs. 5,612/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 13/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out on 20/06/2006 without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 26/12/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to opponents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
11. Appeal no.A/11/537:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/537 is preferred against order dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.181/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 24/07/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 3.956 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 2.120 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 91,181/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 26/12/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 96,793/- (inclusive of Rs. 5,614/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 24/07/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out on 02/08/2006 without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 26/12/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondent in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
12. Appeal no.A/11/538:)
 Appeal no.A/11/538 is preferred against order dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.182/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Acetic Acid Glacial) reached the port of destination i.e. at JNPT port on 09/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt. Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 2.980 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 0.360 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 9,647/-. According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 31/08/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 20,871/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 09/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out on 14/06/2006 without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 31/08/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
13. Appeal no.A/11/539:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/539 has been preferred against order dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.183/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 05/07/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 5.453 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 4.205 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,80,857/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated only first on 06/10/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,92,081/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 05/07/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out on 12/07/2006 without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 06/10/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no immediate intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
14. Appeal no.A/11/540:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/540 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.184/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 31/03/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 15.287 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 5.246 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 4,31,422/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 21/06/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 4,42,646/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 31/03/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out thereafter without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 26/06/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
15. Appeal no.A/11/541:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/541 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.185/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 10/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 3.613 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 2.564 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,09,688/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 06/07/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,15,300/- (inclusive of Rs. 5,612/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 10/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 06/07/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
16. Appeal no.A/11/542:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/542 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.186/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla port, Gujarat on 12/03/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 3.838 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 3.103 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,23,834/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 09/05/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,34,854/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,020/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 12/03/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out thereafter without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 09/05/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
17. Appeal no.A/11/543:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/543 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.187/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Mumbai on 04/06/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 4.685 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 3.111 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 1,35,982/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 06/01/2007 claiming the loss of Rs. 1,47,206/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,224/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 04/06/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out thereafter without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 06/01/2007. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
18. Appeal no.A/11/544:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/544 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.188/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla Port, Gujarat on 24/07/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 3.392 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 1.818 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 78,192/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 21/12/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 83,804/- (inclusive of Rs. 5,612/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 24/07/2006 and material was discharged on 26/07/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out thereafter without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 21/12/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
19. Appeal no.A/11/545:
(i) Appeal no.A/11/545 is preferred against order dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.189/2007. On perusal of the record, we observe that the shipment of chemical (Vinyl Acetate Monomer) reached the port of destination i.e. at Kandla Port, Gujarat on 04/02/2006 and appellant appointed M/s.SGS India Pvt.Ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 9.280 M.T. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out to 8.230 M.T. and the loss was quantified to Rs. 3,16,024/- According to appellant the shortage as per the survey report was intimated to the respondent/Insurance Company. However, we do not find any record or documentary evidence adduced to show that the immediate intimation was given to the respondent/Insurance Company. Therefore the denial of respondent- Insurance Company of not receiving intimation cannot be ignored and falsified. Said material thereafter was totally discharged and the respondent /Insurance Company was intimated first time on 06/04/2006 claiming the loss of Rs. 3,27,044/- (inclusive of Rs. 11,020/- fees of surveyor). On receiving the intimation of claim, respondent/Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor. Authorized surveyor did not find any material i.e. chemical on the site as the entire material was discharged earlier and, therefore, no survey of the chemical could be carried out. Surveyor therefore did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable as it falls under exclusion of policy clause no.4.
(ii) The contention of the respondent/Insurance company is that such a loss/shortage of the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions or date of reaching the consignment to the port of destination. In the case on hand shipment arrived at the port of destination on 04/02/2006. Survey by the appellant/complainant was carried out thereafter without notice to the other side and the intimation of loss claimed under insurance policy was first time given on 06/04/2006. As can be seen from the date of arrival of chemical and the date of filing the claim, no intimation was given. Appellant failed to keep informed of the loss to respondents in time. The survey carried out without the knowledge of the respondent/ Insurance Company and disposal (discharge) of the entire chemical prior to visit of the authorized surveyor of the respondent /Insurance Company is an act inconsistent with the provisions of the law. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. As a result, this appeal fails.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal nos. A/11/532 to A/11/545 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.