State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Box Factory Limited, vs Uiic on 21 November, 2012
First Appeal no. 1119 of 2008 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1119 of 2008
Date of institution : 01.10.2008
Date of Decision : 21.11.2012
Bharat Box Factory Limited, Village Bhamian Kalan, Tajpur Road, Ludhiana
through its Authorised representative Sh. Pardeep Kumar Rana.
....Appellant/complainant
Versus
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O.%, Surya Kiran Complex, 92, the
Mall, 2nd Floor Ludhiana through its Senior Divisional Manager.
...Respondent/OP
First Appeal against the order dated
25.07.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
For respondent : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. The present complaint was filed on behalf of the complainant alleging that it carries on business of manufacturer import, export and deals in all kinds of classes of paper, Media paper, Board Corrugated, corrugating medium and plump including writing paper etc., that the complainant shipped the packing material to M/s Austasia Packaging PTY Ltd., Australia on 21.03.2005 and 23.03.2005 which were covered under three insurance First Appeal no. 1119 of 2008 2 policies mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint, that the goods were insured covering of risk and loss and damage but when the Cargo reached its destination it was found that the goods were in damaged condition and the consignee refused to receive it. A surveyor was appointed who found that the carton boxes have been damaged due to moisture though when the same were loaded, the moisture contained was up to permissible limits. The contention of the complainant is that the goods were damaged by sea water and the OP was liable to pay a compensation of Rs.12,98,050/- but they repudiated the claim. The complainant therefore, filed the present complaint for the payment of aforesaid amount and also Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, torture, financial loss etc.
3. The complaint was contested by the OP admitting that the complainant purchased the three marine policies from it covering the consignment being sent to Australia. It was alleged that the goods were loaded in damp and soft condition due to which the boxes developed fungus and became useless. It was denied if the moisture was due to the entry of sea water into the containers or if the OPs were liable to pay any compensation.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contention.
5. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perusing the record, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.07.2008. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. When the containers reached Sydney (Australia) and the delivery was to be given to the OP, the cartons were damp and infested with Fungus First Appeal no. 1119 of 2008 3 P.J.Wiley & Associates Pty. Ltd. were appointed as surveyor who submitted their report Ex.R-4 holding that the goods were damp/mould-stained, these were in plastic wrapped bundles and all the three containers were internally damp probably due to condensation activity. It was reported that there was no evidence of direct wetting nor were there any holes or defects which would have allowed the ingress of water during transit. It was reported that there was no evidence to suggest that the boxes suffered from fortuity in transit and the surveyor believed that the goods were probably packed in damp state. According to him this may be due to excessive moisture in the product or as a result of the cartons having been loaded in conditions of high relative humidity. The presence of mould staining in the center of bundles in two separate containers tends to indicate moisture was present from the out side. When checked with protimeter it revealed the moisture of the fibreboard was around 17% as opposed to 10-11% in a sample box.
8. As against this report the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that he did not inspect the containers as mentioned in para 5(b) of the report and moreover, the goods were inspected at consignee premises due to which the presence of water in the containers could not be checked by the surveyor. It is also argued that the complainant requested for chloride test to ascertain the presence of chlorine on the carton to prove that the dampness was due to sea water but the same was not allowed. In view of these contentions the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the goods were damaged due to the entry of sea water in to the containers which was not present when the goods were loaded. We do not find any merit in this argument. The goods were in plastic wrapped bundles. It is not proved if there were any hole in the containers through which the sea water could enter the same. Moreover, if the sea water had entered, the dampness in the goods could not be homogeneous but the portion of the boxes where the sea water touches would have been converted into a pulp but it was not so in the First Appeal no. 1119 of 2008 4 present case. The complainant had not got the goods tested from an independent agency or from the representative of the OP to prove that the dampness was within permissible limits when the goods were stuffed in the containers. The self serving reports Ex.C-2A, C-2B, C-2D, C-4A, C-6A, C-6B and C-6D cannot be helpful to the complainant to prove that the dampness was within permissible limits. We therefore, find merit in the report Ex.R-4 of the surveyor that the goods were damp when loaded in the containers and that it was the fault of the complainant and not of the transport company.
9. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no evidence of the water entering the containers and causing dampness to the goods. The complainant therefore, did not suffer loss due to the fault of the marine company and the OPs are not liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. The learned District Forum therefore, rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member 21st November, 2012 Rashmi First Appeal no. 1119 of 2008 5