State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Mehta And Mehta Through Its Partners ... vs M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... on 7 April, 2026
1 FA/19/180
Date of filing: 02/02/2019
Date of order: 07/04/2026
THE MAHARASHATRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MUMBAL
FA/180/2019 in CC/165/2011
M/s Mehta and Mehta, Appellant
Through Its Partners,
1. Mr. Siraaj Deriya, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. 701, Caspian, Sagar City,
Andheri, West, Mumbai 4000058.
2. Mr. Rahul Mehta,
R/at. 604, Suri Rajendra Tower
RK Singh Road, Andheri, East,
Mumbai 4000089,
Versus
1) M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.,
Office at: Dare House, 2nd Floor, Opposite Parties
Chennai-600001
And also having at
Leela Business Park, Gr. Filor,
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri, East,
Mumbai 400093
2) M/s. Micro Inks Ltd.
It's Office at 512/513/423,
MIDAS Sahar Plaza Complex,
JB Nagar, Andheri, East,
2 FA/19/180
Mumbai 400059
3. MIS Hyundai Merchant Marine India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Business Park,
Unit No. 302, 3rd Floor, Sir M.V. Road,
Maral Pipe line, Andhai Kuzia Road,
Andher East, Mumbai 400 059
4. M/s M.B. Leena
c/o Cholamandalam M$ General insulance co.
Leela Business Park, Ground Floor,
Andhezi Kuzla Road, Andhen (East),
Mumbai 400 095.
CORAM:
Justice S. P. Tawade, Hon'ble President
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member,
APPEARANCE
For Appellant: Adv. U.B. Wavikar, Adv. Sajira Jondhale
For Respondent No.1: Adv. Thakkar
For Respondent No.2, 3 & 4: None Present
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/04/2026) Per Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said. Act) against the Order dated 13/12/2018 passed by District 3 FA/19/180 Consumer Commission Addl. Mumbai Suburban Bandra in CC/ 165/2011. In the said case, the District Commission has been dismissed the complaint. Appellant is aggrieved with this order hence he filed appeal before this commission.
2. The Appellant is the Partnership Firm carrying a Business of Custom clearance and incidental activities thereto as a self- employed and it is run for the livelihood of the Partners. In this case they worked as Agents of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 has issued a Marine Insurance Policy in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3, whose containers were Insured by the Opposite Party No. 1 under the Policy i.e. Marine Insurance Policy No. MO-000710-00-000 was issued in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3 and the said Opposite Party No. 3 has already issued NOC in favour of the Appellant for the settlement of Insurance Claim.
3. Appellant submitted that, it was their understanding that the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 will pay 50% damages to the Opposite Party No. 3 in case of accident being occurred. Thus the Complainant have already paid 50% amount of the Claim amount to the Opposite Party No. 3 and the balance will be refunded after the settlement of Insurance Claim. The Opposite 4 FA/19/180 Party No. 1 on 06/02/2010 had issued a Certificate No. MO- 0007108-000-00 through their Agent i.e. present Opposite party No. 4 for an amount of Rs. 21,68,000/-. The said Policy was valid from 12/11/2009 to 11/11/2010. On 11.02.2010 the said Insured container met with an accident, the Complainant informed the occurrence of accident to all the concerned Parties. As per the procedure, FIR was also lodged, Police Panchanama was drawn and it was submitted with Claim Form by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. I have deputed their Surveyor namely M/s Moolchand Nagda & Co. They have taken spot survey and as a matter of precaution the joint survey was also done by M/s Dolphin Marine Enterprises Pvt. Ltd appointed by the Opposite Party No. 3. However the Opposite Party No. I have not handed over the final Survey Report of their Surveyor which is in fact binding as per IRDA guidelines.
4. Appellant submitted that the Claim was repudiated vide mail dated 30/08/2010 by the Opposite Party No. 1 stating that the Policy is subjected to each certificate not to exceed Rs. 7 Lakhs and the total value in the certificate should not exceed 49 Lakhs.
5. Appellant submitted that the Insurance Company themselves knowingly insured the one container amounted to Rs. 21, 5 FA/19/180 68,000/- and thereby violated their own conditions and terms for which the Appellant cannot be blamed and thus Claim is illegally rejected.
6. Appellant submitted that the he has suffered a loss of Rs. 8, 64,288/- therefore Consumer Complaint is filed with value of Rs. 8,64,288/- with 18% interest P.A. on the said amount from 30/08/2010 with Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the Compensation and Rs. 50,000/- towards the Cost of litigation. But Ld. District commission dismissed the complaint; therefore Appellant filed this appeal before state commission.
7. Adv. Sajira Jondhale appeared for Appellant and Adv. Jagruti Thakkar appeared for Respondent No.1. None present for Respondent No.2, 3, & 4. Appellant and Respondent No.1 has filed written notes of argument on record.
8. Ld. Adv. Jagruti Thakkar for Respondent No.1 stated that the Appellant (M/S Mehta & Mehta) is a partnership firm carrying a business of custom clearance and is clearing & forwarding agent. The Respondent no.1 (Cholamandalam Insurance) is insurer, the Respondent no. 2 (M/S Micro Inks Ltd.) undertook the work of carriage of cargo and the Appellant was working as agent for respondent no.2. The respondent no. 3 (M/S Hyundai Merchant 6 FA/19/180 Marine India (p) Itd.) is insured and respondent no.1 has issued Marine Insurance policy in favour of respondent no.3, whose containers were insured by Respondent no. 1. Respondent No. 4 (Ms M. B. Leena) is an agent who issued Open Marine Insurance policy bearing no. MO-0007108-00-000 for an amount of Rs.21, 68,000 for the goods referred therein.
9. Respondent No.1 stated that Respondent No. 3 on 22/01/2010 carried the container in ship to India under bill of lading. Respondent no.2 undertook the work of carriage of cargos through the appellant. On 11/02/2010 the said container which was insured with the respondent no. I met with an accident. Respondent no.1 deputed the surveyor M/S. Mulchand Nagda & co. The insurance policy was issued in favour of the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 3 has given No Objection for settlement of insurance between appellant and respondent no. 2. As per understanding between the appellant and respondent no. 2, the respondent no.2 will pay 50% damages to the respondent no. 3 in the case of accident being occurred.
10. The respondent no. 1 denied the said claim on the grounds that there is no privity of contract between the Appellant and respondent no. 1.There is no valid assignment of the policy in 7 FA/19/180 favour of the Appellant. That the appellant has no insurable interest at the time of purported loss and therefore cannot claim itself as consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
11. The respondent no. 1 stated that the policy was issued in favour of respondent no, 4 as agent for the benefit of respondent no. 3 under the provisions of Marine Insurance Act. Respondent no.4 who is agent acting for and on behalf of respondent no.3 generated the certificate No. M0007108-00-00142 covering the goods refer container i.e. Temperature controlled container valued at Rs.21,68,000/- for road transit from Nhavaseva to Vapi subject to conditions of open policy no.MO-0007108-000-00(C-
12. The respondent no. 1 stated that Respondent no. 4 was given portal facility for generating certificates in favour of its client as per practice. However the said certificate was illegally and wrongfully issued that was beyond the purview of open policy. As per open policy it restricts any certificate to be issued for more than Seven Containers and sum insured for each container not to exceed Rs.7,00,000/-.and total value of Seven Containers should not exceed Rs.49, 00,000/-. As per Marine Cargo Open Policy what were intended to cover were standard containers of 20 feet 8 FA/19/180 or 40 feet excluding cargo and not any refer container. Therefore certificate issued is null and void. Respondent no.3 failed to observe terms and conditions of policy. The policy was issued to the agent of respondent no.3 who is acting for respondent no.3.
13. The respondent no. 1 stated that he has not accepted the contract between the respondent no. 3 and Appellant and in the absence of acceptance, there could not be any transfer of right, title and interest accruing under the policy by virtue of letter dated 30/07/2010.Right to sue has been claimed by appellant on behalf of the damages suffered by the respondent no.3 on account of repair cost for the refer container. Respondent no. 1 has no liability to pay to the Appellant under the policy for the settlement between the Appellant and respondent no.3. That the letter dated 30/07/2010 of the appellant proposing for endorsement in favour of respondent no.2 and appellant has not been accepted by the respondent no. l and therefore there could not be any transfer of right title and interest under the policy in favour of the appellant in the absence of said endorsement.
14. The respondent no. 1 stated that the claim was not for cargo but for container which is subject matter of insurance. The container was being carried in a Trailer No. ΜΗ-04 CP-7246 and 9 FA/19/180 the said container no. HDMU5210911 fell down. The container was in custody of road transporter/carrier and so the appellant was liable for making good the damages sustained to container belonging to respondent no.3. The appellant was forwarding agent acting for respondent no.2.
15. The respondent no. 1 stated that the claim was repudiated by respondent no.1 on 30/08/2010 on the ground of breach of terms and condition no.5 of policy. The letter was issued to respondent no.4 there is no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no.1. Clause -7 of insurance policy states that insurance was not for the benefit of the Carrier or other Bailee. The clause 8.2 of the insurance policy read with Section 79 of Marine Insurance Act, 1963 also mandates that the assured should insure/preserve the right of subrogation against the carrier/Bailee or Third parties. The policy also stipulates to give immediate notice to the carrier/Bailee and take such steps against carrier/Bailee as may be required to protect recovery rights against carrier/Bailee/ Third party liable for causing the loss. The policy issued was for standard container of 20 feet or 40 feet excluding cargo and not any refer container. It is necessary to plead the position as assured or assignee his insurable 10 FA/19/180 interest, the type of insurance policy and relevant terms. The appellant has not mentioned in pleadings about the same.
16. The respondent no. 1 relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. vs Far Eastern Marine Transport Co. on 2 April, 1983 & Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 4306-07 of 2003' decided on June 13, 2008. Hence, the respondent no. 1 prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed and he may be discharged from any liability to pay as the Appellant is not the consumer within the meaning and definition of consumer provided under Section 2 (1)
(d) of the consumer protection Act 1986.
17. On the basis of oral argument of the both sides, documents filed on record, we pass the order with reasons as follows :
OBSERVATIONS
18. Against this background, we perused the copy of the complaint and written version given of the parties in original proceedings, and other documents which had been placed before the District Consumer Commission Bandra. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. It is found that, there is error 11 FA/19/180 committed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission on the factual as well as on legal aspects.
19. The Respondent No. 1 argued that there was no privity of contract with the Appellant. However, it is noted that Respondent No. 3 (the original insured) has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the Appellant for the settlement of the claim. Furthermore, the Appellant has demonstrated financial interest by paying 50% of the loss to the owner. In consumer jurisprudence, an "NOC" from the policyholder often confers the right to pursue the claim upon the party who has suffered the actual financial loss.
20. Further Respondent No. 1 argued that the Appellant lacks "insurable interest." We are not inclined to accept the said submission of Respondent No. 1. As, Respondent No. 3 (the Insured) issued an NOC and assigned the right to the claim in favour of the Appellant. Under the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Marine policies are by nature assignable. Once the original insured (Respondent No. 3) transfers their interest and provides an NOC for the settlement of the claim to the party that bore the loss, the assignee steps into the shoes of the consumer.
12 FA/19/180
21. The crux of the repudiation lies in the "Rs. 7 Lakh limit" per certificate. We find this ground of repudiation legally untenable. The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 1), through its Agent (Respondent No. 4), knowingly issued a certificate for Rs. 21, 68,000/-. Having accepted the premium and issued a certificate for a specific value, the Insurer is estopped from later claiming that the certificate violated their internal policy limits. If the certificate was in violation of the master policy, the Insurer should have refused to issue it at the inception. By issuing the certificate and inviting reliance, the Insurer waived the lower limit for this specific transaction.
22. The Respondent No. 1 claimed that "said" containers were excluded. However, the certificate specifically mentioned the container in question. If the risk was not intended to be covered, the certificate should not have been issued. A "Reefer" container is a species of the genus "Container," and any specific exclusion must be communicated clearly at the inception of the policy.
23. Further it is observed that the Insurer failed to provide the final survey report to the Appellant. As per IRDA Guidelines, a survey report is a critical document, and withholding it while repudiating a claim on technical grounds (unrelated to the actual 13 FA/19/180 damage) constitutes a clear deficiency in service as well it indicates an arbitrary approach.
24. With this, we came to conclusion that the District Commission erred in overlooking that the Insurer cannot benefit from its own inconsistency. Therefore the appeal is need to be allowed and the order passed by District Consumer Commission Addl. Mumbai Suburban Bandra in CC/ 165/2011 on dated 13/12/2018 is set aside. Further this commission directed to Respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) to pay the Appellant the loss amount of Rs. 8, 64,288/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation (30/08/2010) until realization as well as directed to Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 1, 00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation costs and It is directed to Respondent No. 1 to Compliance of this order shall be made within 60 days. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed
2. The order passed by District Consumer Commission Addl. Mumbai Suburban Bandra in CC/165/2011 on dated 13/12/2018 is set aside.
14 FA/19/180
3. It is directed to Respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) to pay the Appellant the loss amount of Rs. 8,64,288/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation (30/08/2010) until realization.
4. It is directed to Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 1, 00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation costs.
5. It is directed to Respondent No. 1 to Compliance of this order shall be made within 60 days.
6. Copies of the judgment are supplied free of cost to both the parties [Justice S. P. Tavade] President [Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan] Member