State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Grip Strapping Technologies ... vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 22 November, 2025
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.No.788 OF 2022
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.207/2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
O/o.4th floor North East Plaza,
Besides BMW Showroom, Erramanzil Circle,
Hyderabad - 500 082.
Now rep. by its Authorized Signatory PRS Harika,
D/o.Padala Nooka Raju, Age: 25 years,
Occ: Senior Executive (Claims Legal) of the Appellant Company,
R/o.IV Floor, NE Plaza, Erramanzil Colony,
Hyderabad.
........Appellant/ Opp.Party No.1
And:
1.M/s.GRIP Strapping Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, O/o. Survey No.201/2A, IInd Floor, SVS Arcade, Near GVR-CVR Gardens, Chinna Thokatta, Tadbund, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500009.
.........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. VAJRA Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd., Shipping Clearing & Forwarding Custom House Agent, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, H.No.7-1-638 to 643/1/BE/204, Flat No.204, Bhanu Enclave, B.K.Guda, Near ESI Hospital, Hyderabad - 500038.
GST No.36AAECV3984F1Z1 Email: [email protected] Ph.No.040-40185460.
.........Respondent No.2/Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/OP.No.1: M/s.MVR Suresh & Associates Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : Sri B.Yuvraj Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opp.Party No.2 : Notice served FA.No.942 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.207/2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:
M/s.GRIP Strapping Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, O/o. Survey No.201/2A, IInd Floor, SVS Arcade, Near GVR-CVR Gardens, Chinna Thokatta, Tadbund, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500009.
........Appellant/Complainant 2 And:
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, O/o.4th Floor North East Plaza, Besides BMW Showroom, Erramanzil Circle, Hyderabad - 500 082.
Phone No.040-33122800 Fax. 040-33122801.
2. VAJRA Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd., Shipping Clearing & Forwarding Custom House Agent, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, H.No.7-1-638 to 643/1/BE/204, Flat No.204, Bhanu Enclave, B.K.Guda, Near ESI Hospital, Hyderabad - 500038.
GST No.36AAECV3984F1Z1 Email: [email protected] (P) 040-40185460.
.........Respondents/Opp.Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Sri B.Yuvraj Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party 1 : M/s.MVR Suresh & Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party 2: Notice served QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL) WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ********** Order : (PER HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT)
1. These appeals are filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in CC.No.207 of 2021 on the file of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad. The Opposite Party No.1filed FA.No.788/2022 and the Complainant filed FA.No.942/2022. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
[ 3
3. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The Complainant is a private limited Company registered under UDYAM Registration before the Government of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) on 29.08.2005. They manufacture the basic metals, iron & steels and also hot-rolled and cold-rolled products of steel. The Complainant Company is having a substantial turnover and large number of dispatches. It is submitted that the Complainant obtained Marine Open Cover (import/export/transit) Policy from the Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.OG-20-1801-1006-00000010 on 09.08.2019.
The period of insurance was from 02.08.2019 to 01.08.2020. The very purpose of the policy was to indemnify the insured for the loss or damages occurred in transit. The said policy was subject to advance premium deposit account with statutory balance kept at books of accounts of Opposite Party No.1.
4. It is submitted that the Complainant received purchase order from Ballith Filling & Packing Material Td. LLC, Dubai, UAE on 09.10.2019 for 75 MT of Steel Strap 19 mm x 0.60 mm black painted, Steel Strap 32 mm x 0.80 mm black painted respectively and Steel Strap 12 mm x 0.60 mm for 25 MT. As per the order, the Complainant exported the goods by raising export invoice dated 07.12.2019 for Cold Rolled Painted High Tensile Steel Strapping 19 mm x 0.60 mm black painted and waxed, weight 22.825 MT. The goods were packed with standard packages. The said goods were loaded into the container for shipping through Opposite Party No.2 on issuance of Guarantee Certificate.
5. It is further submitted that as per the survey report, the vessel arrived at the port of Jebel Ali, UAE on 22.12.2019 and the container was transported to consignee‟s warehouse located at Sharjah Industrial area on 24.12.2019. When the container door was opened, the visible pallets at the door end were noted to be partly wet stained and the offloading was ceased and the matter was immediately notified to the parties concerned.
46. The consignee informed the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 that the consignment was affected in transit and immediately, Complainant informed to the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 arranged a surveyor through W.K.Webster & Company Ltd. The survey was conducted and Certificate of Survey was issued on 04.02.2020. The survey report revealed that the pallets of steel straps in the container were noted partly wet-stained. During survey, chemical tests were carried out which failed to detect the presence of chlorides thus indicating wetting of fresh water nature. The report clearly indicated that the loss or damages to the goods caused in transit and the same was occurred within the period of insurance coverage. The Complainant quantified the claim for sum of Rs.4,64,694/-. The Opposite Party No.1 refused and repudiated the claim on the ground that the clause (ICC (B)) was not a clause of related to the subject policy which was issued to the Complainant, to escape from their legal/contractual liability.
7. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 repudiated the claim on flimsy ground without applying the mind that the Complainant obtained policy ICC (A) by paying more premium to cover all risks after elaborate discussion with the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the Complainant issued legal notice on 16.11.2020. A complaint dated 05.12.2020 was also made to IRDA, Ombudsman, MSME etc. A legal notice dated 02.01.2021 was also issued to Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, praying to settle the claim with interest along with compensation and costs.
8. The brief averments of the written version filed by Opposite Party No.1 are as follows:
This Opposite Party denied all the allegations made by the Complainant. The case on hand involves intricate questions of facts and law which require voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary, for proper adjudication of the matter. When the voluminous evidence and complicated questions are involved in the Consumer Complaint, the better course is to direct the 5 Complainant to approach the Civil Court to get the grievance resolved by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence.
9. It is stated that the subject policy which was issued to the Complainant excludes Rusting, Oxidation and Discoloration unless caused by the perils insured under INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (B) Risks covered subject to other terms of the policy and the same is continued in the renewed policy and the coverage was clearly explained and well communicated to the Complainant. The policy was issued subject to terms, conditions and exclusions thereof. It is to be noted that the Complainant is not covered under the policy as it was not caused to any insured peril provided by the policy. The alleged loss sustained to the Complainant is not at all covered in the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the repudiation of the claim is purely according to law as well as terms and conditions of the policy.
10. It is further stated that all the claims being settled by the Opposite Party No.1 shall be processed based on the rules, guidelines, instructions, regulations framed by IRDA alone and the same shall be appraised to the Complainant. An IRDA licensed surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and as per the report and other documents certain observations were made which revealed that the cause of rusting was not within the scope of the policy and rusting damage might have occurred due to wet affects prior to loading of the cargo itself which caused condensation during the transit and led to rusting of the cargo inside.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Opposite Party acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaint in the interests of justice.
12. The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that all the containers were stuffed in their factory premises with the help of their staff 6 and supervised by the staff of Opposite Party No.2. Inspection of the empty container was done by the loading staff before they commence loading. All the containers were sealed in the presence of the staff of both Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. The container after sealing is moved to the ICD for inspection and clearance by the customs. Once cleared, the containers are again closed and sealed by the customs department. Any damages on opening the container, the same is brought to their notice and they immediately arrange to replace the container. It is to be noted that any water inside the containers was never noticed by this Opposite Party till the sealing was done. Once sealed, the containers are booked through the Container Corporation of India (CCI) for movement as below:
- Unloading at ICD-Hyderabad and Container will wait for schedule or train to Mumbai after 1-2 weeks.
- Unloading at Mumbai Port and waiting time will be 1-2 weeks for further vessel connecting.
13. It is to be noted that once the container is moved and uploaded at ICD-Hyderabad through CCI, this Opposite Party No.2 do not have control on its movement till it reaches the POD i.e., Jebel Ali Port, UAE. It is submitted that the water seepage has resulted due to container damage during transit or other transit issues and hence this is to be covered by insurance. This Opposite Party is not responsible for any damages in transit and carried at owners risk and responsibility. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint against this Opposite Party.
14. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A35 on their behalf. The Opposite Party No.1 filed evidence affidavit. Ex.B1 to B4 are marked on their behalf. The Opposite Party No.2 did not lead evidence.
15. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the 7 Opposite Party No.1 to pay claim amount of Rs.4,64,694/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of delivery of consignment to consignee; to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice; to pay Rs.15,000/- towards suffering mental agony, travelling expenses, legal expenses etc., incurred by the Complainant. The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed with no costs. Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy, failing which, the above amount granted except costs shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
16. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 filed the appeal vide FA.No.788/2022 contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Commission totally ignored to consider Ex.B1 to B4, as such it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
The District Commission blindly believed the version of the Complainant and came to the conclusion that insurance covers all risks or losses or damage to the subject matter insured except as provided in clauses 4 to 7.
The District Commission totally ignored that both the subject policies were having the coverage under the Institute Cargo Clause (A)-ICC (A) with the subsequently issued policy did not have rusting, oxidation and discoloration unless caused by the perils insured under ICC(B).
The District Commission failed to appreciate the reply dated 02.03.2020. It was communicated to the Complainant that non-coverage of loss was based on the documentary proof and the survey report is binding both on the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1. The repudiation of claim is purely based on terms and conditions of the policy as the alleged loss 8 sustained to the Complainant was not at all covered in the terms and conditions of the policy.
17. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant filed the appeal vide FA.No.942/2022 contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Commission ought to have seen that due to service of the Respondents, the Appellant was constrained to approach IRDA, Insurance Ombudsman, additional Industrial Advisor MSME and Bajaj Redressal Officer by incurring huge amount and suffered lot of mental and physical agony. The District Commission ought to have awarded Rs.10,00,000/- towards it.
The District Commission ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The District Commission ought to have allowed the complaint against Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 as prayed for.
The District Commission failed to award interest @ 24%.
18. The docket order of FA.No.788/2022 dated 10.11.2025 goes to show that - "Counsel for the appellant & R1 present and heard. No representation for R2 and arguments are treated as heard. Reserved for orders with a liberty to file written arguments by the respondents within 10 days from today by duly serving copy on the other side. Both parties are instructed to file a memo informing the Commission as to in whose custody the rejected consignment is with."
Despite giving opportunity to Respondents to file the written arguments, the same is not availed by them.
19. The docket order of FA.No.942/2022 dated 10.11.2025 goes to show that - "Counsel for appellant and R1 present and heard 9 their arguments. No representation for R2 and arguments are treated as heard. Reserved for orders with a liberty to file written arguments by the respondents within 10 days from today by duly serving on the other side. Both parties are instructed to file a memo informing the Commission as to in whose custody the rejected consignment is with.
Despite giving opportunity to Respondents to file the written arguments, the same is not availed by them.
20. The point that arises for consideration is -
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief?
21. Points (i) & (ii) :
The Complainant M/s.Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited is involved in manufacturing steel strap and galvanized closed seals and in exporting goods for several years. The Company/Complainant decided to avoid risk of loss or damages caused in transit and preferred to take Marine Insurance Open Cover Policy. The Opposite Party No.1 issued the open cover (import/export/transit) policy vide No.OG-20-1801-1006- 00000010 on 09.08.2019. The very purpose of the policy is in the event of any loss or damages caused in transit before the delivery of shipment to consignee, to indemnify the insured for the loss that occurred in transit.
22. The present issue is with regard to the order received from Ballaith Filling & Packing Material Trd. LLC, Dubai UAE on 09.10.2019. As per the order, the Complainant exported the goods by raising export invoice dated 07.12.2019. The goods were loaded through Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 issued 10 Marine Insurance Certificate for (SI) INR 13,29,442/- by collecting Rs.1,570/- towards premium. The vessel arrived at the port on 22.12.2019 at which time the container was discharged from the vessel and thereafter on road to the Consignee‟s warehouse. On 24.12.2019, the Consignee‟s representatives stated that when the container door was opened, the visible pallets at the door end were noted to be partly wet stained. Under the circumstances loading ceased and the matter was immediately notified to the parties concerned.
23. It is submitted that the consignee informed the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. On the intimation by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 appointed their overseas surveyors. The claim was repudiated based on the Clause (ICC (B)) to escape their contractual liability. The present complaint is filed against the unfair repudiation and this issue requires our careful adjudication based on the documentary evidence placed on record.
Ex.A2 is the Purchase Order dated 09.10.2019 from Ballaith Filling & Packaging Material Trd.LLC, Dubai- UAE.
Ex.A3 is the Invoice dated 07.12.2019 for USD 17,118.
Ex.A4 is the Export Invoice for total being Rs.1,210,296/-.
Ex.A5 is the Marine Insurance Certificate - total SI is Rs.13,29,442/-.
Net premium is Rs.1,329/-
From place - anywhere in India To place - anywhere in the world Description of goods & packaging is as below:
Description of Goods and Packaging Product Description Qty Packaging/ Case No. No. 1 Steel Strappings Seals, Paper 22.825 Customary/Standard Products, Strech Film, Tools and Spares etc. Description as per LC:-
Cold Rolled Painted High Tensile Steel Strapping Terms of Insurance:-
(1) Institute Cargo Clause (A) 11
24. We need to first and foremost examine the Clause ICC (A) which is applicable to the case on hand. This is the broadest possible cover and will invariably cost a lot more than Clause-B or Clause-C policies. This is an "all risks" policy and the exclusions are clearly outlined in the policy. In their defense and grounds of appeal, the Opposite Party No.1 has urged that Clause 4 to 7 were not properly considered by the Commission below.
25. A careful examination of Ex.B1 & B2 read with the risks covered clearly reveals that the policy issued was under Institute Cargo Clauses (A). The Opposite Parties have urged in their grounds of appeal that the subject policies were having the coverage under ICC(A) and with the subsequent policy issued was under ICC (B) and did not have rusting, oxidation and discoloration unless caused by the perils insured under ICC (B). This needs to be specifically supported by their documentary evidence. The Opposite Parties have relied on the exclusions which basically convey that insurance will not cover - Clause 4.1: "Loss, damage or expenses attributable to willful misconduct of the insured" and Clause-4.3 : "Loss, damage or expense caused by insufficiency 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 or liftvan but only when such stowage is carried out prior to attachment of this insurance or by the Assured or their servants)."
26. The Opposite Parties are relying on the Certificate of Survey vide Ex.B3 dated 04.02.2020. The shipment delivery date is 24th December, 2019 and the quantity and description of goods is as follows:-
"40 pallets stc 560 coils Cold Rolled Painted High Tensile Steel Strapping.
Gross weight: 23,305.00 kgs."
Pallet is a support or platform on rigid frames on which goods are placed. When the container doors were opened, the Consignee‟s representative stated that the visible pallets at the door end were 12 noted to be partly wet/wet stained and the offloading was suspended and concerned parties were notified. The surveyor proceeded to inspect the container on December, 28th 2019 and found the container to be externally sound. A light test was also conducted on the container which did not reveal any holes. The 40 pallets were offloaded and all showed signs of wet staining with dried water spots and mud on the card boards, wetting was also noted on inside the polypropylene sheet. Most pallets of steel strap coils were noted to be affected by rust to a varying extent. All tests failed to detect the presence of chlorides, thus indicating „wetting‟ of fresh water nature.
27. The consignee rejected all the 40 pallets containing 560 coils of specification Cold Rolled Painted High Tensile Steel Strapping and the surveyor re-attended the consignee‟s warehouse on 21st January, 2020 to verify the extent of damage. All coils were noted with rusting to varying degrees on the edges and a few areas on the surface. The cause of loss, based on the information was deduced to be the result of goods being exposed to wetting of a fresh water nature at some stage prior to delivery to consignee. The end observation is as follows:-
"On the basis of these findings, we consider that it is therefore likely that the container was sat in pooled water at some stage, causing the wetting of the container flooring and the subsequent condensation found."
28. The main controversy in the instant case is, were the goods exposed to fresh water before or at the time of loading into the container?
29. The goods were loaded at Nuthankal, Medchal, Telangana in early December, 2019 and during the monsoon. The surveyor has clearly informed that the damage/wetting occurred prior to loading in the container. The Complainant has justified his claim reiterating that the 2nd Opposite Party is the carrier and it is their responsibility and liability to deliver the consignment safely to the consignee.
1330. At this juncture, it is relevant and necessary to refer to the letter addressed to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad by Opposite Party No.2 vide Ex.A13. It is reproduced for emphasis:-
"With reference to the recent complaints regarding materials received by their customer in Dubai in damaged and rusted condition, we wish to bring to your kind attention the following points:-
(1) All containers are stuffed in their factory premises with the help of their staff and supervised by our staff. They have obtained a self-sealing certificate from the customs and hence all containers after stuffing are sealed in the presence of the company staff and our staff. Inspection of the empty container is done by the loading staff before they commence loading. (2) Any damages on opening noticed in the container is brought to our notice and we immediately arrange to replace the container.
(3) The container after sealing is moved to the ICD for inspection and clearance by the customs. Once cleared, the containers are again closed and seated by the customs department. (4) Please note that, we have never noticed any water inside the containers till the sealing is done.
(5) Once sealed, the containers are booked through the Container Corporation of India (CCI) for movement, as below:
- Unloading at ICD-Hyderabad and Container will wait for schedule or train to Mumbai after 1-2 weeks.
- Unloading at Mumbai Port and waiting time will be 1-2 weeks for further vessel connecting. (6) At the port, the container is transferred and loaded into the vessel.
(7) The container is taken delivery by the consignee at the Port of Delivery (POD) once it reaches them.
(8) It is to be noted that once the container is moved and uploaded at ICD-Hyderabad through CCI, we have no control on the movement till it reaches the POD i.e., Jebel Ali Port, UAE."14
31. The letter concludes that no customer will move the container once they notice any wetness inside the container. The water seepage has resulted due to container damage during transit or other transit issues and hence is covered by insurance. This important communication cannot be disregarded by the Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company. None of their officers/staff were present at the time or prior to loading the material into the containers and the Complainant has been regularly using the services of Opposite Party No.2 for more than six years and all their exports have been handled by them.
32. Undisputedly the consignment was damaged by rust formation but there is no material evidence that the material was exposed to „fresh water‟ only at the time of loading the container. It could have happened at some stage during transit. Since this manner of repudiation is wrought with a great deal of ambiguity, we concur with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Commission below. The impugned order requires no interference. The appeal filed by the Complainant vide FA.No.942/2022 is liable to be partly allowed since the reasons for enhancement are not duly supported by any cogent evidence.
33. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed without costs by confirming the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed in CC.No.207/2021 by the District Commission-I, Hyderabad.
The Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon, towards part satisfaction after lapse of Revision time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 19th day of November‟ 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 19.11.2025
*UC