State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S New Era Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 7 November, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016
Date of Institution: 20.04.2016
Order reserved on: 02.11.2017
Date of Decision : 07.11.2017
M/s New Era Machines Pvt. Ltd., Majara Road, Sahnewal, Distt.
Ludhiana, through Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Director.
.....Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, 108, Surya
Towers, The Mall, Ludhiana-141 001 (Punjab), through the Regional
Manager.
.....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as
amended up to date).
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Rohit Suri, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate
................................................................................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This complaint has been instituted by complainant against opposite party (OP) u/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) on the averments that complainant is a private limited company duly registered with Registrar of Companies and Sanjeev Kaushal, is one of its directors, who has been authorized to file the complaint. The complainant company has been a leading manufacturer of biscuit manufacturing plants and the customers include the largest biscuit manufacturers all over the world. It is further averred that ITC Ltd., Parle Group, Britannia Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 2 Industries, Cremica Foods, Mrs Bector Foods Ltd., Sona Biscuits are its customers in India. The machineries manufactured by complainant company are in the nature of feeders, forming machines, baking machines, as well as, special application machines, which include sprinklers, oil sprayer and others. The complainant company received orders from M/s Sona Biscuit Ltd. Hajipur, Bihar for the manufacture and supply of biscuit manufacturing machines, comprising of cutting line and oven. As per above order, complainant company had supplied total 29 modules of the oven alongwith other components, being feed end drum, deliver drum, stripper conveyor, hood assembly, bank cleaning assembly and cross web to M/s Sona Biscuit Ltd. Hajipur during the period March 2013 till December 2013, under the various invoices including the oven and other machines comprising the biscuit cutting line amounting to Rs.4.21 crores and with a cumulative invoice value of Rs.5,00,12,187/- (including taxes). It is further averred that for the purpose of business, the complainant company obtained Marine Cargo Policy from OP M/s New India Assurance Company Limited bearing policy no.36030021120200000034 for the period from 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013 for a total insured amount of Rs.5 crores.
The said policy covered all kinds of transit risks by rail/road anywhere in India for all kinds of biscuit manufacturing plants and accessories thereof and to carry out considerable business, it had taken an additional endorsement of Rs.5 crores in April 2013 and further an additional endorsement of Rs.1 crore in October 2013. As Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 3 per order received from M/s Sona Biscuit Limited Hajipur, it supplied one oven for a total basic value of Rs.2,46,00,000/-. Due to sheer length of the complete oven admeasuring about 200 feet, it was supplied under various invoices for machine's safety. The oven comprised of 16 number of common module (DFCO), 6 number of common module (DGFO), 3 number of heat module, 4 number of preheat common module, besides other components like feed end and delivery end drums, conveyors, webs band cleaning etc. Eight number of common module (DFCO) were supplied under invoice no.51 dated 12.06.2013 for Rs.48,00,000/- plus packing and taxes and other eight number of common module (DFCO) were supplied under invoice no.53 dated 15.06.2013 for Rs.48,00,000/- plus packing and taxes. Machinery bearing eight common modules (DFCO) with value of Rs.48,00,000/- under invoice number 53 dated 15.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.55,44,805/- was dispatched to M/s Sona Biscuit Ltd. through transporter New Amritsar Patna Roadways bearing GR No.01555. The goods under invoice no.53 dated 15.06.2013 were received at the destination at Hajipur Patna in Bihar State on 26.06.2013. The complainant company dispatched its employee on 01.07.2013 to carry out the process of installation of the machinery at Hajipur and they reached there on 03.07.2013 and started work of unwrapping and installation of the machinery. During the said process, which was carried out on 5th and 6th July 2013, it came to the notice of employees that four number of common modules (DFCO) had been damaged and alignment thereof Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 4 disturbed. Since, the common modules were made up of sheet metal and had lost the alignment, these could not be repaired and had to be replaced by new common modules except for rollers, M.S. covers, M.S. Ducts, Legs, Bottom trays, which could be taken out from the damaged modules and could be used in the new manufactured modules. Intimation of above damage to the above modules was sent to OP insurance company, vide letter dated 08.07.2013. Vide letter dated 23.07.2013, complainant company lodged the claim with transporter M/s New Amritsar Patna Roadways for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs and calling upon the transporter to pay the loss on account of mishandling of the consignment during the transportation. The transporter issued damage certificate dated 26.07.2013 acknowledging the loss for damage to the consignment, vide invoice no.53 dated 15.06.2013, vide GR No.01555 dated 15.06.2013. First surveyor of OP explained the reason of the damage to the effect that the hook of the units had been broken at the time of lifting of the same from hydraulic crane and the same dropped down to the earth causing damage to the consignment. The machinery is highly technical in nature, thus, special care is taken, while packaging the machineries in order to avoid any kind of damage during transportation. The oven being one of the most technical machine requires special care and as such all common modules of the oven are packed. Dr. Ram Bhagwan Singh was appointed by the insurance company, who submitted the first survey report dated 14.08.2013 regarding damage to the oven unit. The Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 5 machinery and ovens which had been damaged during transit and were replaced and as such new common modules/machinery was installed in place of earlier damaged common modules/machinery. The said machinery being four common modules valued at Rs.22,41,600/- bearing invoice no.117 dated 28.09.2013, were dispatched through Globe International Carriers (Pvt.) Ltd. on 28.09.2013 itself, vide vehicle bearing no.PB-23F-7991, which were duly received at M/s Sona Biscuits Ltd., Hajipur, Bihar and as such installed at the premises. The said goods were also duly insured under Marine Declaration Form dated 28.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.24,65,760/- by the OP insurance company. Copy of invoice no.117 dated 28.09.2013 and the GR, as well as, the marine declaration form and the commercial tax challan dated 28.09.2013 are appended. Emails and correspondence were exchanged between the complainant and OPs that damaged modules of the oven are not repairable and would required to be replaced and the replacement cost is Rs.22,64,273/-. The OP issued letter to the Chief Regional Manager, Patna Region Office dated 29.01.2014 that the surveyor has stated that since the claim is to the tune of Rs.24,64,273/-, thus, the assessment of the same is beyond his domain, thus, calling for intervention in the matter. Er. Ram Bhagwan Singh surveyor gave final report dated 12.02.2014 with regard to assessment of the replacement of cost of the machinery. The OP has not honored the insurance claim of the complainant despite providing all documents by the complainant company to them. The Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 6 complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.23,41,059/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of loss till payment; further to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment; and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint has not been filed by an authorized person, as no resolution passed by Board of Directors of complainant company has been annexed with it. It is averred by OP that the goods reached on 26.06.2013 and the risk stood terminated on delivery of goods to the consignee at the destination, as per policy. The risk was until delivery to the final warehouse at the destination named in the policy or in respect of transits by Rail only or Rail or Road, until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the railway wagon at the final destination railway station or in respect of transits by road only until expiry of 7 days after arrival of the vehicle at the destination town named in the policy, whichever shall first occur. The period of 7 days referred to above shall be reckoned from the midnight of the day of arrival of Railway Wagon at the destination railway station or vehicle at the destination town named in the policy. it is admitted that intimation letter dated 08.07.2013 from complainant was received by OP. This fact is denied that letter dated 23.07.2013 was sent to the transporter, as such no postal receipt has been annexed with it. The right of recovery from carrier has Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 7 been prejudiced and affected of OP and OP will not be able to recover any amount from the carrier. Damage certificate dated 26.07.2013 issued by transporter is of no use to the OP as no recovery can be effected from the carrier on the strength of this damage certificate. The goods have been delivered in sound condition and OP is not liable to pay anything as insurance claim. The alleged loss was detected on 05.07.2013, though the goods reached at Hajipur Bihar on 26.06.2013 and OP is not liable for any loss under the policy. The finding of the surveyor is based on surmises without any proof on the point as to what loss has occurred. Er. Ram Bhagwan surveyor submitted the preliminary survey report dated 14.08.2013, which cannot be termed as proof of admissibility or liability. When the IRDA licensed surveyor has confirmed after physical inspection of the damaged modules that the same are repairable, the same survey report has to be relied upon. The alleged loss was detected after nine days and the policy risk terminates after seven days of reaching the place of destination i.e. 26.06.2013. The loss assessed by the surveyor for Rs.23,41,059/-, vide his report dated 25.03.2014 is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and is not payable. The loss was reported to OP after 12 days on 08.07.2013 by complainant. The surveyor found the case of the complainant without any substance as appointed by OP. The complainant has not annexed any document to rebut the statement of transporter and hence the same is to be relied upon. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by giving Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 8 delayed intimation to OP of this loss. The complainant could have refused to take delivery in case the damage was manifest at the time of delivery. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint of complainant.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.C-A & C-B alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-23 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and close the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Short facts of the complaint is that it is a private limited company dealing in the business of biscuit manufacturing plants and is supplier of the above plants in the large area of the world. It obtained marine cargo policy from OP, vide policy number 36030021120200000034 for the period from 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013 for a total insured amount of Rs.5 crores. The said policy covered all kinds of transit risks by rail/road anywhere in India for all kinds of biscuit manufacturing plants and accessories thereof. Ex.C-1 is the copy of certificate of incorporation of complainant company under companies Act. Ex.C-2 is the pamphlet book of complainant company. Vide Ex.C-3, complainant company purchased the Marine Cargo Open policy from OP for the period 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013 for sum assured amount of Rs.5 crores for all kinds of transit risk by road/rail of biscuit manufacturing plants and accessories. The policy contains a condition that in the Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 9 event of loss or damage, which may result in a claim under this insurance policy, immediate notice must be given to the nearest office or to the policy issuing office in the journey as per this policy from anywhere in India to everywhere in India by rail/road. Ex.C-4 is the details of dispatch from New Era Machines Pvt. Ltd. to Sona Biscuit Ltd. Hajipur, Bihar. Ex.C-5 is the copy of retail invoice dated 15.06.2013 for the biscuit manufacturing plant's accessories transported from Ludhiana to M/s Sona Biscuits Limited, Hajipur, vide invoice no.53 dated 15.06.2013. This document has proved this fact that complainant company transported the manufacturing biscuit plants and accessories to M/s Sona Biscuits Limited at Hajipur Bihar. Ex.C-5/A is the document showing that the part consignment sent through transporter was received on 26.06.2013 at Hajipur at its destination, vide this document. Ex.C-6 is the copy of intimation of loss to OP company by M/s Sona Biscuits Ltd. dated 08.07.2013 to the effect that out of those machines, four numbers of machines (Oven module) got damaged during transit. It was requested to OP to arrange to pay visit for inspection and assessment of the said damage so that claim can be lodged by the vendor. The complainant also relied upon letter sent by complainant company to New Amritsar Patna Roadway, Transporter to the effect that damage ensued to machinery during transit, as they have transported the machinery from Ludhiana to Hajipur Bihar under invoice no.53 dated 15.06.2013 and GR No.01555 dated 15.06.2013 to Sona Biscuits Ltd. at Hajipur Bihar and Rs.24,00,000/- + taxes was mentioned as Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 10 total loss due to mishandling of the consignment during transportation by transporter. The Transporter issued damage certificate dated 26.07.2013 to complainant company to the effect that four number out of eight number of common modules, valued at Rs.24,00,000/- + taxes reached destination in damaged condition. The counsel for OP challenged the validity of this certificate by contending that the investigator appointed by OP found this certificate as fake, as the transporter made the contrary statement before him. We proceed to examine the other available evidence on the record. Ex.C-9 to C-11/E are sketches and photographs of the components of the manufacturing plants, as depicted by the complainant on the record. Pursuant to intimation sent by M/s Sona Biscuit Hajipur and on the request of the complainant company, OP deputed Er. Ram Bhagwan as surveyor and loss assessor in this regard. He submitted his report Ex.C-12 dated14.08.2013. He is the licensed surveyor under law. Ex.C-12 has proved this fact that he visited the consignee M/s Sona Biscuits Limited, Hajipur Bihar, where the consignment lay in damaged condition. He took the photographs from different angles to depict the damage to above consigned machinery. It is recorded in his survey report that the damage has been minutely inspected and noted by him. The actual quantum of loss in repairing was not reported by consignee. He stated that it would calculated and provided by the representative of consignor within 10 days. It is further stated in the survey report that damaged unit could not be dismantled. This surveyor reached the Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 11 conclusion that the hooks of the units were broken at the time of lifting the same from hydrolic crane and the same were dropped down on the earth surface (Plastered). This surveyor found that the alignment of each oven was found inde-aligned condition. So, the same required cutting, denting, welding aligning and painting. The repairing of the units could not be made at the consignee's premises as the equipments were not available there. He calculated the cost of repairing as Rs.1,60,000/- plus cost of transportation subject to policy terms and conditions and also for the final approval of the same. Ex.C-13 is the VAT retail invoice no.117 for sending the manufacturing biscuit plants to M/s Sona Biscuits Limited by complainant. The complainant objected to the report Er. Ram Bhagwan vide Ex.C-14/A email dated 29.01.2014 to OP, as it lodged the claimof Rs.24,64,273/- for damage to the consignment during the transit. Ex.C-15 is the copy of letter dated 29.01.2014 from Regional Manager of OP to Chief Regional manager Patna Regional Office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to the effect that complainant projected the loss of Rs.24,64,273/-, whereas the surveyor Ram Bhagwan made repair assessment therefor of Rs.1,60,000/- only. It was submitted for necessary action by Regional Manager to Chief Regional Manager. Ex.C-16 is the copy of final survey report of Er. Ram Bhagwan Singh to the effect that since, no such dealer or manufacturers are available here, so it is not possible to quote rate for bare container frames. So, in his opinion insurer might consider indemnification towards cost & freight for four numbers of bare Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 12 container framed of DGFC (only manufacturing cost) after obtaining its rate quotations from consignor. OP appointed Navin Chander Jha as surveyor to assess the final loss in this case. He wrote letter to complainant vide Ex.C-17 on 12.03.2014 for furnishing the papers, clarifications to him for early submission of the report to the insurer. The complainant sent letter Ex.C-18/A to Navin Chandra Jha, the second surveyor. General Manager of Sona Biscuits Ltd. sent letter to complainant company vide Ex.C-18/B on 13.03.2014 that when the consignment reached at destination, while unloading some misalignment in four common module kept in bottom chambers and top chambers which were fixed on bottom chambers were in good shape and alignment affected due to jerks and jolts only caused due to unworthy road condition in transit. It is further stated in this letter that these common modules cannot be repaired and these modules should be replaced by new modules, which was communicated to and accordingly the same have been supplied later on in presence of insurance surveyor. Ex.C-18/C is the copy of letter dated 18.03.2014 from complainant company to Navin Chandra Jha, surveyor regarding sending the documents. Ex.C-19 is the final survey report submitted by Navin Chandra Jha to OP dated 25.03.2014. He has recorded the remarks at para no.21.0 that loss was not caused by delay. This surveyor concluded that preliminary survey report by Er. Ram Bhagwan was speculative. He recorded that it is purely a case of transit hazard on way, no particular place of damage can be earmarked in transit.
Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 13
5. OP appointed investigator Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency and report of investigation is Ex.C-20 to the effect that complainant dispatched some parts of oven (8 common modules) packed in four fabricated channels of one wooden case on 05.06.2013 in truck no.PB-23E-2024 vide GR No.01555 dated 15.06.2013 of New Amritsar Patna Roadway Ludhiana. These goods were safely delivered to consignee at Hajipur on 26.06.2013. Transporter as well as insured made clear in their respective statements that goods were safely delivered and receipt of the same was obtained, so during transit there was no loss to goods. On 08.07.2013, loss was reported to insurer and claimed that four common modules were damaged. So loss was reported after about 12 days. Actual cause of loss can be found out from Hajipur only, where we have not visited. Insurer might deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said finding. The report of investigator is not outrightly ruled out that complainant's claim is totally false. The investigator has not visited Hajipur to find out the actual cause of loss as depicted in his report. Ex.C-21 is details of sales covered under above policy dated 14.12.2012 during the policy period. Ex.C-22A is the email from complainant to Royal Associates investigator regarding sending the above details. Ex.C-23B is email dated 05.06.2014 from complainant to Darbara Singh and Rajesh Desella regarding surprise checking of Kashmir Singh of Royal Associates (Investigating and Detective Agency) Kurukshetra alongwith his one associates at complainant's Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 14 factory at Majara Road, Sahnewal for investigation without any prior intimation. OP repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant by virtue of letter Ex.C-23 dated 06.10.2014. After examining the documents submitted by insured and Royal Associates on 07.07.2014, the claim was partly repudiated that the carrier gave written statement to investigator that no damage was reported to him in transit. The complainant also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kaushal Director Ex.C-A and affidavit of Sher Singh, fitter of complainant company Ex.C-B in support of the case of the complainant. Affidavit of Sher Singh lends corroboration to the genuineness of this case. OP examined Kashmir Singh of Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency, who tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-A on the record. He has not stated the facts in detail and simply stated that he submitted the report dated 07.07.2014. Affidavit of Devi Singh, Manager and power of attorney holder OP insurance company is Ex.OP-B on the record. This witness testified that the claim has been repudiated, because no letter was written to transporter on 23.07.2017, as there was no postal receipt therefor. It is further stated that no proper claim has been lodged on the carrier for recovery of above loss under law. This witness denied that the goods were damaged during transit or unloading of goods. This witness further deposed that damage certificate is of no use to the OP, as no recovery can be effected from the carrier on the strength of this damage certificate. Er. Ram Bhagwan was deputed to carry out the preliminary survey and his survey report is just assessment Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 15 of loss and cannot be termed as admissibility of liability of OP. This witness denied that damaged modules were not repairable at all. The alleged loss was detected after 9 days, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, whereas the risk terminates after seven days from the date of arrival of goods at the destination. The OP relied upon Ex.OP-1 the Marine Cargo Open Policy. Ex.OP-2 the report of Royal Associates alongwith statement of transporter regarding delivering the consignment to consignee in sound condition. If there is any damage, the same are mentioned in the GR copy. In this case, the consignment was delivered on 26.06.2013 to M/s Sona Biscuits Ltd. and damage to four number of machine (oven modules) came to knowledge of M/s Sona Biscuits limited, when the employees/mechanics of complainant company started the work of unwrapping and installation of the above machinery on 5th and 6th July 2013. Vide Ex.C-6 dated 08.07.2013, M/s Sona Biscuits Limited wrote letter to OP insurance company for inspection of a transit damaged consignment received from complainant company. Even in the statement, which is part of Ex.OP-2, there is nothing stated by the Manager of the Transporter that transporter has not issued any damage certificate to the complainant company.
6. From conclusion of the entire evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that there is nothing on the record proved by OP that the transporter's damage certificate Ex.C-8 is a fake document. The Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 16 submission of counsel for OP is that investigator found it to be wrong on the basis of statement of transporter remained unsubstantiated on the record. We have perused the statement of Manager of Transporter, which is part of Ex.OP-2, the report of Royal Associates and there is nothing stated by the Manager of New Amritsar Patna Roadways Co. that transporter has not issued any Damage Certificate to the complainant company of the damaged consignment. The submission of counsel for OP is that there was no postal receipt to prove that letter Ex.C-7 was sent to the transporter by the complainant company on 23.07.2013. Even if it is taken that there is no postal receipt, even then damage certificate Ex.C-8 cannot be ruled out of consideration in this case. The investigator Royal Associates never visited M/s Sona Biscuits Ltd. at Hajipur to find out the exact loss to the consignment. We cannot be oblivious of this fact that insurance companies hanker after collecting the premium and when the claim of the insured are filed, they proceed to reject them on one pretext or the other. It is not a fair practice on the part of insurance companies, as it makes dent in their credibility. We find that there is nothing on the record to prove that above damage was not caused to the consignment in transit. The complainant paid premium to OP for insurance of the consignment for covering risk. The OP cannot disown the same on flimsy grounds only. The damage certificate issued by transporter lends credibility to it. Er. Ram Bhagwan submitted that the four number of damaged modules were repairable, but failed to quote the rate of above damaged Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 17 modules in his final survey report dated 12.02.2014. Naveen Chandra Jha, second surveyor, found it to the contrary by submitting that the preliminary surveyor's observation have been based merely on the speculation and are not convincing to him, vide his report dated 25.03.2014 Ex.C-19 on the record. There is mere affidavit of Manager of OP on the record, which is insufficient to dislodge the claim of the complainant on the strength of above evidence of complainant on the record. The OP has also not disproved the fact of sending the consignment from Ludhiana to M/s Sona Biscuits Limited by complainant. The insurance company is bound to decide the insurance case within time bound manner under IRDA regulations. An inordinate delay has been caused by OP in deciding the insurance claim of the complainant company, which itself is deficiency in service on its part. The OP appointed the surveyors and investigator to pick up the holes in the case of the complainant for rejecting it. We, thus, concur with the submission of counsel for the complainant that the four numbers of modules out of eight, stood damaged in transit and they were not repairable at all.
7. The forceful submission of counsel for OP is that complainant has not intimated the loss to OP within scheduled time and hence there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.OP-1. The submission of counsel for OP is that complainant has not given the immediate notice to OP of above damage and hence violated the condition of the policy in this case and the claim is rendered inadmissible. He justified the rejection of Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 18 insurance claim by OP on this point. The counsel for complainant argued that loss came to the notice of the complainant, when the above modules of biscuit manufacturing plant and accessories were not aligned at Hajipur. We find credibility in the submission of counsel for complainant on this point. The modules were of large size and is evident from photographs placed on record by complainant and above modules must have consumed adequate time for its alignment. There is no reason to know the loss before alignment of the modules was carried out at the place of its installation. The cause of action would commence in this case from the date of knowledge of loss and not from the date of reaching the consignment at the destination. Even Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India has issued instructions to Insurance Companies that genuine claims should not be discarded on hyper technical view of mere delays, as mentioned in circular no. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/ 216/09/2011 Dated 20.09.2011. We can take judicial notice of this fact that on account of heavy modules, this type of damage was noticed firstly when the alignment was carried out on the spot of the modules. In the circumstances of the case, above referred delay was not in the knowledge of the complainant previously about loss of the consignment in the transit. So, this submission of counsel for OP is not accepted by us in view of above instructions issued by IRDA and even otherwise, delay is only quite minimal in intimating the loss to OP, which has been reasonably explained by the complainant, as loss was not in its knowledge Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016 19 earlier before alignment on the spot of installation. The genuine claim of the complainant cannot be discarded on this ground, as argued by counsel for OP.
8. As a result of our above discussion, the claim of the complainant is found to be proved. We accept the complaint of complainant and direct OP to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.23,41,059/- with interest @7% per annum from the date of actual loss till payment within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Since, complainant is a private limited company and is not a natural person and is only a juristic person and hence, there is no question of awarding of compensation for mental harassment to it. The prayer of the complainant for awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental harassment is declined. We award the cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
9. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 02.11.2017 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER November 07, 2017.
(MM)