State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jayanti Prasad Gautam vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. on 15 March, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020
Date of institution : 17.06.2020
Reserved on : 01.03.2021
Date of decision : 15.03.2021
Jayanti Prasad Gautam, Proprietor, M/s A-one Corporation, C/o
Bureau Tim es, A-58, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076.
.......Complainant
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 89, Hemkunt Chamber,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the complainant : None For the opposite party : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate .............................................................................................. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
Originally this complaint (CC No.385/2014) was instituted before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 19.08.2014 and has been entrusted to this Commission by way of Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 2 transfer, vide letter dated 12.06.2020, issued by State Commission New Delhi, in compliance with order of the Hon'ble National Commission dated 22.04.2020 passed in F.A. No.559 of 2019. On receipt of case, intimation was sent to the parties for appearance. On 10.08.2020, Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the opposite party (in short 'OP') and the complainant sent letter dated 21.07.2020 that due to critical illness and old age he is not able to appear before this Commission and requested that the case be decided on the basis of the documents placed on record.
2. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") for issuance of following directions to the opposite party (in short "OP"):-
i) to pay Rs.19,25,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lac and Twenty Five Thousand only) towards the insurance claim of the complainant alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 21.03.2013;
ii) to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only)
to the complainant as compensation towards the
harassment, mental agony, pain and other financial loss suffered by the him; and
iii) to pay Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) towards the litigation charges.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that complainant is working in the field of publication of Magazine and is Chief Editor and owner of an International Magazine namely "Bureau Times" since 1992. The said magazine "Bureau Times" is read by high end people Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 3 based in foreign countries, who have interest in the news relating to international matters on different subjects. For executing the above said publication work, the complainant constituted the proprietorship firm M/s Bureau Times having its office at A-58, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076. For the purpose of communication on behalf of the said M/s Bureau Times, the complainant also established another proprietorship firm with the name "A-One Corporation". M/s A-One Corporation which acts as a communicator, is a sister concern (business associate) of M/s Bureau Times. The present complaint is being filed by the complainant in the capacity of Proprietor of M/s A- One Corporation. It is further averred that the printing work of the above said magazine - "Bureau Times" is being done under the name and style of concern (Press) - "World Security Printing Press" situated at Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida (UP), which is duly registered under the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 (as amended up-to- date) and the same is duly approved by competent authority (City Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.). The said concern "World Security Printing Press" is also associate proprietorship concern of the complainant. As per the continuous demand on urgent and time-bound manner from USA based customers, the complainant in order to supply the said magazine to USA, undertook to send 70 numbers of special issue of the said magazine "Bureau Times". Copies of the cover page and one inner page of the magazine- Bureau Times Special Volume - March, 2013 are Ex.-CW1/1 (colly) on the record. The said 70 numbers of special issue of the magazine were got printed Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 4 by M/s World Security Printing Press. Copy of bill/cash memo dated 21.02.2013 of World Security Printing Press to Bureau Time for US$ 35000 for 70 magazines is annexed as Ex.CW1/2. Copy of letter of World Security Printing Press to Bureau Times regarding agreement for special issue of March, 2013 is annexed as CW1/3. Copies of the documents relating to Declaration of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1897 before the City Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar is on the record. M/s A-one Corporation purchased the said 70 numbers of issue from M/s Bureau Times against Bill No.225 dated 11.03.2013. Copy of Bill/Cash Memo dated 11.03.2013 from Bureau Times to M/s A-One Corporation for US$ 35000 for 70 magazines is annexed as Ex.CW1/5. Being a special issue for March, 2013, the price of each copy of the said magazine was US$ 500 and total price of 70 magazine worked out to be US $35000 (Rs.19,25,000/- at that time). The magazine was "Special Volume, March, 2013" and it was to reach USA in March, 2013 under specified time frame, i.e. during March 2013 and if there was any delay there was every likelihood that the magazine would not be acceptable to its customers being outdated. It is pertinent to mention here that the licensing authority, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi duly verified and certified the price of the magazine "Bureau Times" at 500 US Dollar each as per international standard and importance being a special issue for March, 2013, vide Ex.CW1/4 (colly). The complainant contacted OP for taking Marine Insurance Policy, which assured that such type of consignment is fully and duly covered under its Marine Cargo Specific Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 5 Voyage Policy and OP assured that all the risk of such type of consignment is duly insured under this policy. Since, the consignment was to be sent to USA from Mumbai, the same was first required to be dispatched to Mumbai from Delhi and in that connection the OP said that they would insure the consignment from Delhi to Mumbai by rail route only and for further dispatch of the consignment from Mumbai to USA through sea route the complainant would be required to take another insurance policy from Mumbai. It is further averred that believing the assurances made by the OP in good faith, the complainant insured the consignment from Delhi to Mumbai with OP against Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy No.31250021120100000120 dated 12.03.2013 for a period of one year for a sum of Rs.19,25,000/- i.e. total price of 70 magazines. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.11,355/-, through cheque bearing No.315704 dated 11.03.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076, which was duly honored in favour of the OP. The OP illegally and malafidely charged around four times higher rate for said insurance, if compared with the rates being charged by other Insurance Companies for the same consignment. The consignment was dispatched from Hazrat Nizamuddin Station, New Delhi to Panvel, Maharashtra via Rail Transport mode. The said consignment was duly inspected and certified by Shri D.K. Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor (License No.SLA 4380) on 11.03.2013 at about 16.00 hours, who was appointed by the OP. The said surveyor observed that all 70 numbers of magazine were tied with a plastic rope and bundled Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 6 wrapped into one package, wrapped with old newspapers, again wrapped by brown adhesive tape in order to hold together. The package was then covered with cloth duly hand stitched. He further observed that externally the magazines and package were found in good conditions and no damage was visible at the time of his survey and said surveyor also took the photographs of the said consignment to his complete satisfaction and certification. The said surveyor submitted his inspection report to the OP and OP insured the said consignment, vide above said policy and OP agreed to indemnify the loss, if any occurred. The said consignment was dispatched from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Panvel Jn., Maharashtra against Railway Receipt No.A-2579086 dated 19.03.2013. Thus, the said consignment was duly booked with Indian Railways under proper receipt/challan. On 21.03.2012, when complainant personally reached Panvel Railway Station from Delhi to receive the said consignment of 70 magazines for further dispatch of the same to abroad, he found that the said package/consignment was totally wet and damaged and having no commercial value after getting badly damaged by water as the magazine in that condition would not be acceptable to customer based in USA. The complainant got very upset and worried as apart from the expected loss of a huge amount he was to face the loss of credibility and goodwill from his international readers. The complainant having no other option, before receiving the consignment in damaged condition, intimated the fact about consignment being got damaged to the Head Office of OP at Mumbai. Thereafter, the Head Office of OP at Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 7 Mumbai deputed a surveyor/loss assessor namely M/s R.B. Davar to inspect the consignment and to submit the report after assessing the loss. On 22.03.2013, the surveyor from M/s R.B. Davar, inspected the consignment at Railway Goods Shed at Panvel in the presence of complainant, Railway Staff and RPF Personnel. The surveyor prepared the relevant notes about the condition of the consignment and took the photographs of the consignment from various angles. Thereafter on request of the complainant, Sh. A.K. Sharma, Chief Parcel Supervisor, C.R. Panvel also issued a certificate on 22.03.2013 to the effect that the said consignment was opened in the presence of Government Insurance Surveyor Mr. Anil Thakkar and it was found completely in wet condition, which was handed over to Sh. Anil B. Thakkar, Surveyor and complainant retained the copy of said certificate. The said surveyor Sh. Anil B. Thakkar also took the entire salvage/damaged magazines in his car and he submitted the surveyor report to the OP. In his survey report No.2013/304, the surveyor had given the opinion that "The magazines were found unsalable in the market" and "The magazine in its present condition will not fetch any salvage value and will fetch salvage value as scrap." Thus, the said consignment of 70 magazines was found totally damaged having no salvage value. Due to this, the complainant suffered financial and business loss apart from the loss of his name, fame and credit in the international market, as the complainant is also Editor-in-Chief of the said magazine. It is further averred that on the insistence of OP, the complainant got audited and verified the price of said special issue Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 8 magazine piecewise and total value of the said 70 magazines was assessed as US $35000 (Rs.19,25,000/-) by Chartered Accountant Neha S. Gupta & Co., having their office at A-40/1, Nangli Razapur, Nizammudin East, Near ISBT Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi-110013. The said price of US $500 is printed on each of the magazine. For settlement of the claim, the complainant supplied the requisite documents, as asked by Sh. Anil B. Thakkar, Surveyor, but he started demanding bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- and threatened the complainant for not assessing the loss. The complainant in order to bring the illegal and malafide acts of the said surveyor in the knowledge of the Senior Officers of IRDA, wrote letters dated 20.04.2013, 30.04.2013 and 15.05.2013 to them. Thereafter, the complainant started pursuing the matter with the Senior Officers of OP at Mumbai and also sent required documents to OP, vide letter dated 17.07.2013. The OP also asked the estimate value for reprinting the magazine and cost of the paper. Vide letter dated 17.07.2013, he informed OP that there is no use of reprinting the magazine as its value was only upto 30th March, 2013 being "Special Volume- March, 2013" and after this period nobody would buy the said magazine. Vide two letters dated 02.08.2013, the complainant also informed OP that Original Railway Receipt has been taken by Railway Authority at the time of delivery of consignment (salvage) and original damage certificate was handed over to the surveyor hence both the documents in original could be provided to the OP. The OP also sought certain information/clarification from the surveyor and in response, Ms. Mamta Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 9 Bahree, an official of the OP, provided the same to Ms. Anjali Mehrotra, Divisional Manager of OP, vide email dated 15.10.2013. Vide email dated 17.10.2013, Division Manager of OP also sought certain information/clarification from the complainant and he explained in detail every query raised by OP, vide letter dated 29.10.2013 i.e. about the status of every proprietorship firms of the complainant and that insurance claim cannot be taken from two agencies/authorities, hence he had given letter to the Railway Authority that he sought claim from OP. M/s R. B. Davar, Surveyor sent letter dated 05.11.2013 to OP raising various questions on the insurance claim of the complainant and this letter was further forwarded to the complainant by the OP, vide their email dated 08.11.2013. The complainant answered the queries of M/s R.B. Davar, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, vide letter dated 12.11.2013. Thereafter, OP appointed M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants as an Investigator, instead of settling his claim. The said Investigator never contacted or approached the complainant personally and rather he called C.A. of the complainant, Ms. Neha S. Gupta at around 11.00 p.m. at night and talked with her in an intoxicated condition in a un-parliamentarian language. The complainant requested vide several communications to OP to communicate with him via email directly, but to no effect. On non- receipt of insurance claim, the complainant sent legal notice dated 30.12.2013 to OP for settlement of insurance claim of Rs.19,25,000/-. In the meanwhile, he received a letter dated 02.01.2014 from Sh. B.S. Agarwal of M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants, V-10/1, DLF, Phase-III, Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 10 Gurgaon-122002, in which they raised a number of queries unnecessarily and without any basis just in order to delay the matter and also to repudiate the claim of the complainant and vide letter dated 23.01.2014, the complainant had given parawise answers and also provided copy of his income-tax return for the assessment year 2013-2014, besides other documents. He again sent a letter dated 03.02.2014 to Sh. B.S. Agarwal in response to his letter dated 30.01.2014. The OP also sent reply dated 11.02.2014 to the legal notice of complainant. Sh. B.S. Agarwal personally visited the complainant's office on 11.02.2014 and all the queries raised by him were replied/clarified and he also sought further clarification/information vide letter dated 12.02.2014 and complainant explained the same to him vide letter dated 13.02.2014. Vide letter dated 15.02.2014, the complainant again furnished detailed answers to the queries raised in letter dated 12.02.2014. The complainant also sent rejoinder to the reply of OP, which was sent by it in response of legal notice of complainant and replied the questions raised on behalf of OP. Vide letter dated 23.03.2014, Sh. B.S. Agarwal again raised unnecessary, irrelevant and repeated queries i.e. (a) Name and contact number of HO Manager, whom he (complainant) requested for survey, (b) Damage certificate from the Railway, (f) Order on him by his purchaser for printing special issue with terms and conditions of supply, (g) Copy of fee bills of Ms. Neha Gupta, Mahindra Associates & Mr. D.K. Sharma, (i) One copy of special issue for deciding type of magazine for determining cost and some of other queries, which are Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 11 also irrelevant, unnecessary and uncalled for. The most of the queries had already been replied/informed to the earlier surveyor/OP and the investigator too. The answers to the queries of Sh. B.S. Agarwal are
(a) that M/s R.B. Davar was appointed as surveyor by the HO of the OP and this fact was in the knowledge of Sh. B.S. Agarwal, as per report of M/s R.B. Davar and it is highly irrelevant to know the name and contact number of HQ Manager as far as the case of the complainant, (b) the complainant had already informed the investigator, vide letter dated 23.01.2014 that the damage certificate in original was already handed over to the Surveyor namely Anil B. Thakkar of M/s R.B. Davar and again asking of said original damage certificate by Sh. B.S.Agarwal proves his illegal and malafide intention,
(f) The complainant had already informed that the time bound special issue of 70 magazine was published for sales/marketing promotion purpose, hence no terms and conditions from the purchasers/readers were made. It is common knowledge that no publisher publishes magazine on special order hence, there is no question of any terms and conditions (g) this query is also irrelevant, if Sh. B.S. Agarwal had doubts about the correctness of the certificate/reports submitted by Ms. Neha Gupta, Mahindra Associates and Mr. D.K. Sharma, he could have confirmed from them. Moreover, Mr. D.K. Sharma was appointed by OP and he submitted his report to OP and the complainant has not asked for reimbursement of the same and the same just a ploy to delay and repudiate his claim, (i) Needless to mention that only by seeing a copy of magazine by any other person not connected with the Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 12 publication of the concerned magazine, cost of the said magazine cannot be assessed. The cost of the magazine, apart from the quality, quantity of paper, quality of the printing by number of colors used in the same and manufacturing cost, also includes various other variable factors like fee charges for articles by the writers, designs, layout etc. of the magazine which depends on the credibility and goodwill of the editors, editorial staff, proof readers, photographers, computer operators, printers, binders and artists in different fields etc. Moreover, in the end of the said letter Sh. B.S. Agarwal has mentioned that copy of the magazine should not be supplied as the same will be of no use because of their different profession. It is evident that the said query is self-contradictory as far as the letter dated 23.03.2014 is concerned. The above said queries were again replied by the complainant, vide his letter dated 01.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant has been pursuing the matter with OP for settlement of his claim and his claim is still pending and complainant was made to run from pillar to post many a time. Due to this reason, complainant suffered pain, harassment, mental agony and financial loss. It is further averred that conduct of OP is highly unfair, illegal, uncalled for and against the principles of natural justice. The complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Party
4. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objection that the instant complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 13 by the complainant with fraudulent and malafide intention to harass and blackmail the OP. The complainant has failed to highlight any 'deficiency of service' on behalf of the OP and in view of documents filed by complainant in support of his contention is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is alleged to be the Proprietor of M/s A-One Corporation, in whose favour the policy was issued, does not exist and thus there is no insurable interest, whereas the magazine title 'Bureau Times' is not insured under the policy. The complainant has not approached the State Commission with clean hands and suppressed materials facts. The instant claim was referred by OP to its Surveyor and thereafter an Investigator, who had sought clarifications from the complainant, in response to which the complainant sent delayed and incomplete responses and thus the claim was kept pending for a considerable time. It is matter of record that upon detailed investigation, the Investigator appointed by the respondent had recommended repudiation of the claim. The OP sent detailed repudiation letter dated 03.08.2016 through registered post to the complainant. It is a matter of record that the valuable consignment of 70 magazines, in respect of which the complainant filed the instant complaint claiming a sum of Rs.19,25,000/- was dispatched through Rail under luggage ticket showing a weight of 11 kg by paying a sum of Rs.101/- and was packed as 'post parcel packing' with old newspapers and cloth only. The complainant for its allegedly expensive consignment should have made Rail worthy waterproof packaging done, and thus, the complainant was negligent in not Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 14 securing such an allegedly expensive consignment. It is apparent that the complainant had not done proper packing for his consignment and, thus, had exposed the OP to unwarranted risks. It is a matter of record that the consignment was only of 70 magazines which were only 'Advertising and Pampering' magazine each consisting of 28 pages. The magazine was not a regular magazine nor contained any valuable material to command a price of 500 American dollars for each magazine. The magazines apparently were for free distribution in India and elsewhere. It was a magazine which was not having any regular printing/circulation schedule and thus was published without any schedule. Despite repeated reminders and requests by OP and its Surveyor/Investigator, he could not supply any invoice or purchase order or trade requirement in respect of the said magazine contended to have been valued at 500 American Dollars. The complainant has not given any intimation of loss to the OP, which as per the policy was mandatory to be given immediately. It is a matter of record that the complainant despite repeated requests by the OP and its surveyor/investigator did not provide the damaged consignment of magazine i.e. 'salvage' nor a clear and unqualified damage certificate. It is further averred that the bills placed on record by the complainant were allegedly raised at the sale price i.e. printed on the magazines and not the factually tenable, sustainable pecuniary value of the magazines and there is no bill raised on the stationery and in the name of M/s A-One Corporation in the whole process. It is apparent that the complainant had taken the insurance policy with a malafide and ill Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 15 motive of deriving benefit/profit out of insurance claim, which is a gaming transaction and against public policy. The complainant is claiming the insured amount by taking a plea that the magazines, which were narrating an event already more than an year old then, were time bound and the same lost value on account of delay, which is not the covered even if the same is attributable to the operation of the peril insured against. It is a matter of record that as opined by the investigator the reprinting of the magazine at a cost of Rs.3,10,500/- (Gross Loss Assessment) was discussed to the complainant, which was declined, as the magazine was time bound. The contended loss is proximately attributable to the delay which peril is not covered under the policy. It is a matter of record that there is no expiry date for the intellectual write-up property contended to have been available in the magazines, thus the same could have been conveniently reprinted and circulated in the coming months. The Contract of Insurance is a contract of 'good faith', thus, the complainant was under an obligation to give a true declaration of the fairly reasonable sum to be insured. The cost of reprinting the magazine, as assessed by the investigator was Rs.3,10,500/- as against the exorbitant amount disclosed and insured by the complainant fraudulently. The amount insured by the complainant has fraudulently been made in US Dollars whereas there had been no transaction to justify the same since there is no purchase order/invoice to support the same, as the transaction took place in Indian Rupees only. It is a matter of record that there is no evidence on record to show that the said consignment of the so called high Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 16 value magazine were intended to have been destined ahead as the complainant has failed to produce any evidence of subsequent loading in respect of the consignment either by Ship or Air arrangement having been made by the complainant for further shipment or journey of the consignment after arrival at Mumbai as the complainant could not foresee a risk/damage to certainly take place. It is a matter of record that the OP under the policy was under an obligation to 'replace' the consignment which was offered by OP, but fraudulently not accepted by the complainant. For dispatching the magazine there was undue delay on the part of the complainant as the alleged time bound magazine said to be of March, 2013 issue, and policy taken around 2nd fortnight, was actually loaded/dispatched by Rail on 21.03.2013 i.e. almost at the end of the month. Had the complainant been diligent enough and had dispatched the magazine much before the month end, in case of loss there would have been sufficient time on hand to get the magazines re-printed in case of any mishap. It is further averred that for the assessment of the loss the complainant never cooperated with the Surveyor and Investigator, which has been mentioned in the report which also delayed the assessment. On merits, it is averred that it is a matter of record that alleged magazine of the complainant was merely a pampering magazine and the alleged entire team of editors of the complainant is working without any proper evidence to support the same. The income tax returns of the complainant are without any details of M/s A-One Corporation. It is a matter of record that the Firm and the insured M/s A-One Corporation Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 17 and Bureau Times are two separate legal entities. It is a matter of record that 'Bureau Times' is not insured under the policy. It is a matter of record that World Security Printing Press is not the insured nor the complainant before this Commission. There is no reason for sending a March 2013 issue vide Train to Mumbai on 21.03.2013 for onward flight to USA. In case of urgency and time bound schedule the complainant should have opted for a direct flight to the USA from Delhi. The pre-inspection is a matter of record and need no reply. The correspondence exchanged between the parties is a matter of record. The complainant with a malafide intention is making allegations against the Surveyor/Investigator as their reports were not favourable to the complainant and have demolished the false and frivolous claim of the complainant. The OP controverted the other averments of the complainant and denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
5. The complainant also filed the rejoinder to the written reply of OP and controverted its averments of the OP.
Evidence of the Parties
6. To prove its claim, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of J.P. Gautam, Chief Editor, who also proved the following documents in his affidavit i.e. copies of cover page and one inner page of the magazine-Bureau Times Special Volume- March, 2013 Ex.CW1/1, copy of bill dated 21.02.2013 Ex.CW1/2, copy of letter from World Security Printing Press to Bureau Times Ex.CW1/3, copies of Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 18 documents relating to declaration under Section 4 of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1897 Ex.CW1/4 (colly), copy of bill dated 11.03.2013 Ex.CW1/5, copy of letter dated 11.03.2013 Ex.CW1/6, copy of cheque for Rs.11,355/- Ex.CW1/7, copy of pre-despatch inspection report Ex.CW1/8, copy of Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy Ex.CW1/9, copy of Railway Receipt dated 19.03.2013 Ex.CW1/10, copy of gate pass dated 21.03.2013 Ex.CW1/11, copy of hotel and food expenses Ex.CW1/12 (colly), copy of certificate issued by Chief Parcel Supervisor, C.R. Panvel Ex.CW1/13, copy of certificate issued on 25.03.2013 by M/s Mahendra & Associates Ex.CW1/14, copy of letter dated 28.03.2013 Ex.CW1/15, copy of survey report No.2013/304 Ex.CW1/16, copy of letter dated 15.04.2013 Ex.CW1/17, copy of certificate dated 18.04.2013 Ex.CW1/18, copies of letters and one email dated 09.04.2013 Ex.CW1/19, copies of letters dated 17.07.2013 Ex.CW1/20 and CW1/21, copies of letters dated 02.08.2013 Ex.CW1/22 (colly), copy of email dated 15.10.2013 Ex.CW1/23, copy of email dated 17.10.2013 Ex.CW1/24, copy of letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex.CW1/25, copy of letter dated 05.11.2013 Ex.CW1/26, copy of email dated 07.11.2013 Ex.CW1/27, copy of letter dated 12.11.2013 Ex.CW1/28, copy of letter dated 20.12.2013 Ex.CW1/29, copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2013 Ex.CW1/30, copy of letter dated 02.01.2014 Ex.CW1/31, copy of letter dated 03.02.2014 Ex.CW1/33, copy of reply dated 11.02.2014 sent to the legal notice Ex.CW1/34, copy of letter dated 12.02.2014 Ex.CW1/35, copy of letter dated 13.02.2014 Ex.CW1/36, copy of letter Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 19 dated 15.02.2014 Ex.CW1/37, copy of letter dated 18.02.2014 Ex.CW1/38, copy of letter dated 23.03.2014 Ex.CW1/39 and copy of letter dated 01.04.2014 Ex.CW1/40.
7. The OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Mrs. Deep Sikha, Manager of OP Ex.OP-A alongwith documents i.e. terms and condition of policy Ex.OP-1, Investigation Report dated 30.09.2015 Ex.OP-2, copy of repudiation letter dated 03.08.2016 Ex.OP-3 and copy of Survey Report No.2013/304 dated 04.04.2013.
Contentions of the Parties
8. We have heard learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the written arguments submitted by OP and pleadings of the complainant and record of the case, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the OP vehemently contended that M/s A-One Corporation works as a communicator to all the units run by the complainant and the complainant is running a commercial business and is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. It is a matter of record that the consignment was only of 70 magazines which were only 'Advertising and Pampering' magazine each consisting of 28 pages. The magazine was not a regular magazine nor contained any valuable material to command a price of 500 American dollars for each magazine. The valuable consignment of 70 magazines, in respect of which the complainant filed the instant complaint claiming a sum of Rs.19,25,000/- was dispatched through Rail under luggage ticket showing a weight of 11 kgs by paying a sum of Rs.101/- and was Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 20 packed as 'post parcel packing' with old newspapers and cloth only, as is evident from page 33 of the complaint. The packaging was not Rail worthy and the complainant was expected to have made water-proof packing. But due to non-water proof packaging, the complainant was negligent in not securing such an allegedly expensive consignment. As per the certificate of Railway at page No.35 of the complaint, the remarks are that "at the time of delivery found small damage condition"
and there is no mention of water damaged. As per the Exclusion Clause 2.3 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road/Air) Clause-A (Ex.OP-1), the loss damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing is not payable. The relevant Clause 2.3 is as under :-
"loss damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing or preparation of the subject matter insured to withstand the ordinary incidents of the insured transit where such packing or preparation is carried out by the Assured or their employees or prior to the attachment of this insurance for the purpose of these clauses "Packing" shall be deemed to include stowage in container, land conveyance or railway wagon and 'employees' shall not include independent contractors."
It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant himself reached from Delhi for taking delivery and, thus, his dispatching a small packet, size approximately 1ft. x 1ft. x 1ft., weighing 11 kg speaks of malafide intentions. The complainant has not brought on record any proof of travel arrangements from India to United States of America. The complainant did not provide the damaged consignment of magazine i.e. 'salvage' nor a clear and unqualified damage certificate from the Railways. The certificate of Railways at page No.35 of the complaint is Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 21 not a proper Damage Certificate on the basis of which any claim can be lodged on the Railways. The complainant has lodged the monetary claim against the Railways late and did not protect the recovery rights of the OP. The bills placed on record by the complainant were raised at the sale price i.e. printed on the magazines and not the factually tenable pecuniary value of the magazine i.e. the cost price. The complainant has not submitted any document to show the existence of M/s A-One Corporation nor any income tax records of the Firm has been filed. There is no insurance interest of M/s A-One Corporation. As per Exclusion Clause 2.4 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road/Air) Clause-A (Ex.OP-1), the loss damage or expense proximately caused by delay, even though the delay be caused by risk insured against. The Investigator had opined that the reprinting of the magazine could have been at a cost of Rs.3,10,500/- and that was offered to the complainant, which was declined by the complainant. The insurance has fraudulently been made in US Dollars, whereas there had been no transaction to justify the same since there is no purchase order/invoice to support the same, as the transaction took place in Indian Rupee only. There was undue delay on the part of the complainant as the alleged time bound magazine said to be of March, 2013 issue was actually loaded/dispatched by Rail on 21.03.2013 i.e. almost at the end of the month. In case of urgency and time bound schedule the complainant should have opted for a direct flight to the USA from Delhi. Insurance is also governed by principle of indemnity which strictly prohibits the insured to gain out of misfortune. The marine Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 22 insurance policies are issued as valued policies, but in case of fraud, even those policies can be challenged on the ground of fraud, as per Section 29 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963. The detailed investigation was got done and OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03.08.2016 (Ex.OP-3) based on the finding of the Investigation Report Ex.OP-2. The complainant himself had delayed the matter and did not corporate with the Surveyor and the Investigator. The first ground of repudiation is that the insured M/s A-One has no insurable interest, whereas Times Bureau was not insured under the policy. The second ground was that there was insufficient and unsuitable packing which caused the loss and there was no protection from water and/or rain water. Even in ordinary circumstances the magazines are generally found duly packed in polythene covers/polypack covers protecting the same from water. Thirdly, the loss is alleged to have occurred due to delay as the magazines were time bound but the insurance policy has the exclusion clause clearly stipulating that the loss caused due to delay is not covered even if the same is attributable to operation of a peril insured against. Further there was no expiry date for the intellectual write-up property contended to have been available in those magazines and the same could have been reprinted and circulated in the coming months. Fourthly, no clear and unqualified damage certificate was produced by the complainant. The complainant has prejudiced the recovery rights by almost giving up before the Railway by not lawfully holding them legally responsible for the loss. Rather the complainant has stated before the Railway that he has Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 23 already lodged a claim with the insurers. Fifthly, there is wilful misconduct on the part of the complainant by not providing the information requisitioned by the Surveyor/Investigators. Lastly there is an unusual delay in dispatching the said time bound magazine of March, 2013 issue by loading the same on 21.03.2013 i.e. almost took the insurance so late as if he knew that the magazine would have been of no value in case of time lapse etc. and the only way to recover the cost and/or deriving benefit out of the transaction was insurance only which was fraudulently adopted/resorted to by the complainant. Learned counsel further contended that complainant is not entitled to any claim amount of Rs.19,25,000/- with interest @24% from 21.03.2013. Though no liability is admitted but if this Commission finds any amount payable, then the maximum liability of the OP may please be restricted to only Rs.3,10,500/- as assessed by the Investigator. Learned counsel further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikka Paper's case and contended that complainant is not entitled to any compensation towards mental agony and harassment and the complainant is also not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Consideration of Contentions
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contention raised by the learned counsel for the OP and pleadings of the complainant.
11. It is admitted fact of the case that complainant got insured his consignment of 70 magazines i.e. Bureau Times from OP, vide Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 24 Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy Ex.CW1/9 for the sum assured of Rs.19,25,000/- and the policy was valid for period from 12.03.2013 to 11.03.2014. The main plea of the complainant is that he suffered loss due to damage of the above said consignment and despite requests OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, the first contention of the OP is that M/s A-One Corporation works as a communicator to all the units run by the complainant and the complainant is running a commercial business and is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. It is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble National Commission in case M/s Harsolia Motors Vs M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal No.159 of 2004 and other connected appeals decided on 03.12.2004, observed that "a person, who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk, does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss. It is not intended to generate profits." In view of the ratio of the law laid down above by the Hon'ble National Commission, the objection of OP is rejected, as the insurance policy was purchased from the Insurance Company just for indemnifying the risk under the same.
12. Learned counsel for the OP further contended that insured M/s A-One Corporation has no insurable interest, whereas Times Bureau was not insured under the policy. We have persued the survey report No.2013/304, CW1/16, wherein the Surveyor Sh. R.B. Davar appointed by the OP verified the invoice particulars and confirmed that Bureau Times, A-58, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 has invoiced the Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 25 same to A-One Corporation, Bunglow No.8, Government Service Colony, Panvel, Thane. The Surveyor also mentioned rate of 70 copies of the said magazines (@ $500) as USD $ 35000. It is also pertinent to mention that in the said policy the address C/o Bureau Times has been mentioned as A-58, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 and the name of insured as A-One Corporation. Moreover, in pre- despatch inspection report dated 11.03.2013, Ex.CW1/8, the Surveyor of OP also mentioned the name of magazine as 'Bureau Times'. As such there is no force in this contention of the OP and we reject the same.
13. The next contention of the OP is that there was insufficient and unsuitable packing which caused the loss and there was no protection from water and/or rain water and OP relied upon Exclusion Clause 2.3 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road/Air) Clause-A (Ex.OP-1), the loss damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing is not payable. It is pertinent to mention that before insuring the said consignment, the OP got conducted pre-despatch inspection from its Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Sh. D.K. Sharma, who conducted the survey on 11.03.2013 at about 1600 hrs and submitted his report dated 11.03.2012, Ex.CW1/8 to OP, observing that "All 70 numbers of magazines were tied with a plastic rope and bundled into one package, wrapped with old newspaper, again wrapped by brown adhesive tape in order to hold together. The package was then covered with cloth duly hand stitched". He further observed that "Externally the magazines and package was found in good condition Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 26 and no damage visible at the time of survey". The Surveyor also took photographs of the above consignment and sent to the OP for perusal. There is no remarks of the Surveyor with regard to packing of the said consignment in plastic cover, whereas the Surveyor could instruct the complainant in this regard, but he found the packaging satisfactory, as such he did not instruct the complainant about the same. It is pertinent to mention that after going through the pre-despatch inspection report dated 11.03.2013, Ex.CW1/8 and after satisfying itself, OP issued the said Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy, Ex.CW1/9 to the complainant. Moreover, there is no insufficiency or unsuitability of packing of the consignment recorded by Sh.D.K. Sharma, in his pre- despatch inspection report dated 11.03.2013. As such finding no force in this contention of the OP, the same is hereby rejected.
14. The next contention of OP is that alleged loss has occurred due to delay, as the magazines were time bound and the loss caused due to delay is not covered and there was no expiry date for the intellectual write up property. The OP relied upon Exclusion Clause 2.4 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road/Air) Clause-A (Ex.OP-1). It is pertinent to mention that the said magazine was "Special Volume, March, 2013"
and it was to reach USA in March, 2013. The OP issued the said policy to the complainant on 12.03.2013, wherein it has been mentioned the packaging description as 'Rail Worthy'. Hence, there is no purpose for the complainant to take the consignment with him, as alleged by OP. The complainant dispatched the said consignment from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Panvel Jn., Maharashtra Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 27 against Railway receipt No.A-2579086 dated 19.03.2013, Ex.CW1/10 which was confirmed by the Surveyor in its Survey Report No.2013/304 dated 04.04.2013, Ex.CW1/16. After the issuance of the said policy, Ex.CW1/9, the complainant dispatched the said consignment after completing the formalities within nine days from the date of issue of the said policy, as such there is no delay on the part of the complainant, as the said consignment of 70 magazine was to reach USA in March, 2013 and the said magazine was "Special Volume, March, 2013", as such the question of reprinting the same for coming months does not arise. As such, this contention of OP is also without any force and the same is hereby rejected.
15. The further contention of OP is that no clear and original damage certificate was produced by the complainant and complainant has given up the recovery rights before the Railway. The complainant has pleaded that Sh. A.K. Sharma, Chief Parcel Supervisor, C.R. Panvel issued a certificate on 22.03.2012, Ex.CW1/13, to the effect that "said consignment when opened in the presence of Govt. Insurance Surveyor Mr. Anil Thakkar, it was found completely in wet condition". Moreover, the Surveyor of OP also conducted the survey on 22.03.2012 at Railways Good Shed at Panvel jointly with the Railway and consignees representative and submitted his Survey report No.2013/304, Ex.CW1/16, observing that the magazines were found unsaleable in the market. In the presence of above certificate dated 22.03.2012 issued by Railway and Survey Report No.2013/304 dated 04.04.2013, Ex.OP-4, there is no need of original damage Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 28 certificate, as the OP itself got affirmed the loss to the said consignment, through its Surveyor. It is also pertinent to mention that complainant pleaded that he could not get the insurance claim from two Agencies/Authorities, hence he had given letter to the Railway Authority that he sought claim from OP, but later on vide letter dated 02.08.2013 Ex.CW1/22 (colly) he lodged the claim with the Railway Board for recovery of claim of damaged goods. In view of this, we find no force in this contention of OP and the same is hereby rejected.
16. The OP further contended that the complainant did not provide the information requisitioned by the Surveyor/Investigator. On the other hand, the complainant pleaded that he supplied the every requisite information and documents to the Surveyors/Investigators and also to OP and to prove his version he placed on record letter dated 15.04.2013, Ex.CW1/17 written by him to Sh. Anil B. Thakker, Surveyor, letter dated 17.07.2013 Ex.CW1/20 written by complainant to the General Manager of OP, letter dated 17.07.2013, Ex.CW1/21 written by World Security Printing Press to the Divisional Manager, CDU, letters dated 02.08.2013 Ex.CW1/22 (colly) written to Divisional Manager of OP by the complainant, letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex.CW1/25, letter dated 12.11.2013 Ex.CW1/28. The OP failed to rebut these letters of the complainant on the record. It is pertinent to mention that the damage has been proved on record, vide Survey Report No.2013/304 dated 04.04.2013, Ex.CW1/16/Ex.OP-4 and vide damage certificate issued by Railway Department on 22.03.2013 Ex.CW1/13 and the complainant has also proved on record vide above Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 29 letters that he supplied the information and documents to the Surveyor/Investigator and to the OP, as requisitioned by them. As such, this contention of the OP is also without any force and is not tenable.
17. In view of our above discussions, we held that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 03.08.2016 (Ex.OP-3). It is also pertinent to mention that the damage to the insured consignment has been proved vide Survey Report No.2013/304 dated 04.04.2013, Ex.CW1/16/Ex.OP-4 by the Surveyor of the OP. Moreover, vide Investigation Report dated 30.09.2015, Ex.OP-2, the Investigator assessed the gross loss to the tune of Rs.3,10,500/-. There is no doubt that complainant suffered the loss and due to that reason the OP offered Rs.3,10,500/- to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same. It is pertinent to mention that ABM Engineers & Consultants was appointed as Surveyor by the OP and the said Surveyor received the said order on 20.12.2013 and it commenced the investigation on 22.12.2013, as is clear from Investigation Report Ex.OP-2. Thereafter, the said investigator took very long time to investigate the matter and submitted his report dated 30.09.2015 to OP and in this manner he took 21 months to complete the investigation. Thereafter, OP took 11 months to repudiate the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03.08.2016, Ex.OP-3. It is also pertinent to mention that due to this tactics of the Insurance Companies, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India issued notification dated 22.06.2017 for protection of Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 30 policyholders' interest, wherein under Regulation No.15, Claim Procedure in respect of a General Insurance Policy, it has been directed to the Insurance Companies that in cases where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing the loss/claim, it shall do so immediately, in any case within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured and the insurer/surveyor shall within 7 days of the claim intimation, inform the insured/claimant of the essential documents and other requirements that the claimant should submit in support of the claim. Where documents are available in public domain or with a public authority, the surveyor/insurer shall obtain them. It is further directed that interim report of the physical details of the loss shall be recorded and uploaded/forwarded to the insurer within the shortest time, but not later than 15 days from the date of first visit of the surveyor. It was further directed that the insurer and/or surveyor shall not call for any information/document that is not relevant for the claim. The surveyor shall submit his final report to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment. If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor, under intimation to the insured/claimant; to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the final survey report. The surveyor, on receipt of this communication, shall furnish an additional report within three weeks from the date of receipt of communication from the insurer. On receipt of final survey report of the additional survey report, as the case may be, and on Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 31 receipt of all required information/documents that are relevant and necessary for the claim, an insurer shall, within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured/claimant. If the insurer, for any reason to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured/claimant, decide to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the final survey report and/or additional information/documents or the additional survey report, as the case may be. In view of above, it is clear that the OP unnecessarily delayed the claim of the complainant, whereas the complainant proved on record that he supplied the documents and information to the Surveyor/Investigator and also to the OP. This is a clear deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to interest on account of delaying the matter. It is also pertinent to mention that OP offered Rs.3,10,500/- to the complainant, but he refused to receive the same. The OP could also send the cheque of that amount to the complainant as settlement of the claim, but OP intentionally delayed the matter and in the end after a long time it repudiated the claim of the complainant, which is totally wrong, as discussed above.
18. Now, we have to decide the amount of compensation which is to be paid to the complainant on account of loss of the said consignment. The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.19,25,000/-, as price total price of 70 magazines (per magazine USD $500) and the complainant has proved on record the price of the said magazine as USD $500, vide cover page and one inner page of Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 32 the said magazine Ex.CW1/1, wherein the price of said magazine is mentioned as 'US$ 500'. Further he relied upon bill/invoice dated 21.02.2013, Ex.CW1/2 issued by World Security Printing Press to the Bureau Times for the amount of $35000 as a price of 70 magazines. It is pertinent to mention that the columns with regard to receiving the payment in cash, through A/c payee cheque and draft are blank. Form- B dated 08.03.2013 Ex.CW1/4 also mention the price of said magazine in dollar as $500 (as retail selling price of the said magazine) and this document has been issued by the Additional Commission of Police (Licensing), Delhi only after seeing printing price at the magazine, which was in US $ 500, but there is no detail with regard to the price. He further produced on record bill/cash memo dated 11.03.2013, Ex.CW1/5 issued by Bureau Times to A-One Corporation for an amount of US$ 35000/-, but again the columns with regard to receiving the payment in cash, through A/c payee cheque and draft are blank. It is pertinent to mention that in the particular of this bill, there is a note that "Dollars should be come in the account of Bureau Times. As A/c No. already given to you, at the time of agreement." The complainant has failed to produce on record any evidence with regard to any previous transaction of Dollars in the said account of Bureau Times. The complainant also produced on record certificate issued by Mahendra & Associates Ex.CW1/14 in respect of printing, paper cost, addition of writer amount, found be @ Rs.26,000/- each and copy of certificate dated 18.04.2013, Ex.CW1/18 with regard to the price of the said magazine i.e. US $500 and total price of the Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 33 said 70 magazines calculated approximately as US $ 35,000 (Rs.19,25,000/-), which are without any detail. On the other hand, OP contended that the complainant has fraudulently fixed the price in US Dollars of the said magazine, whereas there had been no transaction to justify the same since there is no purchase order/invoice to support the same. The OP also got investigated the matter from ABM Engineers & Consultants, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Investigator & Risk Inspection, which submitted its report dated 30.09.2015, Ex.OP-2. In its report, the Investigator has gone through all documents, as referred above and other documents submitted by the complainant with regard to the price of the said magazine and the said Investigator assessed the gross loss to the tune of Rs.3,10,500/-, but he has failed to mention any quotation with regard to materials used for printing the said magazine and also the fees of the each and every person, who contributed to prepare the said magazine and other expenses. In the absence of said documents, we are of the view that the gross loss assessed by the Investigator is on lower side. On the other hand, the complainant has also failed to produce on record any detailed evidence like, fees, wages and cost of material, which used in printing of said magazine, and the other detail for fixing the price of each said magazine as US$ 500. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has also not produced on record the detail of cost of magazine, wholesale price, wholesale margin, retail price, and retail margin and also the expenses, which was to incur by it to send the said consignment to USA for its selling. Moreover, the certificate issued by Mahendra & Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 34 Associates Ex.CW1/14 in respect of cost of printing, paper, addition of writer amount @ Rs.26,000/- is not a full description of the price of the said magazine and there is no detail mentioned in it. Every businessman fix the price at maximum retail price for his product, after calculating all the expenses, cost of goods, taxes to be paid and margin of the retailer, which is more than 50-60% of the actual cost of the goods. It is also pertinent to mention that the damage to the said consignment has occurred within territory of India, while the consignment of said 70 magazines was in transit by Rail from Hazarat Nizamuddin to Panvel. In the absence of the above said evidence with regard to actual cost incurred by the complainant on preparation of above said magazines, we are not in a position to determine the exact loss suffered by the complainant and printing of price on the magazine in US Dollars does not mean that the complainant suffered actually the total price of the said magazines, because the said consignment damaged in India while in transit by Rail before reaching its destination at USA. In view of our above discussion and in the absence of clear evidence with regard to actual loss suffered by the complainant, we hold that complainant is entitled to 40% i.e. Rs.7,70,000/- as the actual cost of the said 70 magazines, out of fixed price of the said magazines i.e. Rs.19,25,000/-, and the complainant is also entitled to 10% i.e. Rs.1,95,000/- out of the said total price, as loss of income, which he had to earn by selling the said magazine in USA. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the above said total 50% amount i.e. Rs.9,65,000/- from the date of filing the complaint till its realization on account of delaying Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 35 the matter for settlement of the claim of the complainant as well as on account wrongly rejection of the claim very late, as discussed above.
19. The complainant also claimed compensation for mental harassment, agony and pain. It is pertinent to mention that actually the complainant M/s A-One Corporation is a firm and the question arises for consideration is, as to whether, a Company/Firm is entitled to compensation for mental harassment, agony and pain. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant is a Firm/Corporation, and, as such, a Corporate entity was not entitled to compensation for physical harassment/mental agony/harassment and similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in "Wipro Limited Vs.Toppers Multimedia (P) Limited & Ors.: II (2010) CPJ 39 (NC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors." 2009 (7) SCC 777 held that "the complainant is a company and, therefore, claim for mental harassment is not legally permissible. It is only the natural person who can claim damages for mental harassment and not the corporate entity." In view of above referred authorities, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for mental harassment. The complainant is not entitled to the expenses claimed for hotel rent, roti, paneer pakoda, etc., as the same are not covered under the said policy.
20. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and following directions are issued to the OP:
Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2020 36
i) to pay 50% amount i.e. Rs.9,65,000/- (Rs.7,70,000/- as cost of the said magazines and Rs.1,95,000/- as loss of income), out of the total prize of the said 70 magazines, alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint before the State Commission, New Delhi i.e. 19.08.2014 till its realization to the complainant; and
ii) to pay Rs.20,000/-, as cost of litigation expenses.
21. The compliance of this order shall be made by the OP within a period of 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.
22. The complaint could not be decided earlier due to pandemic of Covid-19 and awaiting of appearance of the complainant.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 15, 2021.
MM