Case Title: Mr Amjad Hussain vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others
Summary
Oriental Insurance Company Limited was found at fault for unlawfully repudiating a valid claim for damaged marine cargo of gingers by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. The commission, composed of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki, and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, ordered the insurance company to reimburse the insured amount and interest. The transit companies involved in the transaction were also found to be negligent for the damage to the cargo during transit and were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh. The Complainant, Abdullah Marhool Alshamri, filed a consumer complaint with the State Commission, claiming the transit and logistics companies involved in the transaction were negligent. The State Commission determined that the insurance company’s actions were unjustified and ordered the insurance company to reimburse the Complainant for the insured amount, along with interest.
About the case
Oriental Insurance Company Limited was found at fault for the unlawful repudiation of a valid claim for damaged marine cargo of gingers by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench, which was composed of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Member), and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (Member). The Insurance Company was instructed to reimburse the sum, in addition to interest. The transit companies involved in the transaction were also found to be negligent for the damage to the cargo during transit and were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh.
Abdullah Marhool Alshamri, a consumer in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, consented to the Complainant’s offer to provide him with fresh ginger. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”) insured the marine cargo that was to be used to fulfill the supply. The Complainant arranged for the shipment of fresh ginger to Dammam, Saudi Arabia, after receiving the purchase order. The consignment was shipped at -11.1 degrees Celsius, despite explicit instructions to convey it in a reefer container with a temperature setting of 11 degrees Celsius. Consequently, the ginger was frozen and damaged upon arrival. Additionally, the Complainant’s buyer declined to accept the damaged products, which led to the cancellation of the supply contract and financial losses.
The Complainant claimed that the transit and logistics companies involved in the transaction were negligent. The Complainant filed a claim with the Insurance Company for the damages after the buyer declined to accept the products. Nevertheless, the assertion was rejected. The Complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”), because she felt aggrieved.
The Insurance Company argued that the damage was the result of the Complainant’s own negligence, citing a survey report that indicates the temperature discrepancy. It contended that the Insurance Company could not be held accountable for the reefer container’s configuration, as it was completed prior to loading. Furthermore, they contend that the Complainant and their agents were responsible for the loading and packaging, thereby releasing them from liability.
The State Commission noted that the Complainant had acquired a Marine Cargo – Single Voyage Insurance policy from the Insurance Company to safeguard the consignment during its transportation. The shipment reached its destination in a state of frozen and damaged. The insurance claim was additionally rejected by the insurance company. Nevertheless, the consignment was damaged as a result of the negligence of transit and logistics companies (Opposite Parties 2-6), which failed to maintain the necessary temperature during shipping.
The State Commission determined that the Insurance Company’s actions were unjustified in relation to the repudiation of the claim. This was due to the fact that the consignment was insured from Delhi to Dammam, and the losses occurred during the voyage. Consequently, the Insurance Company was liable for compensation. Consequently, the State Commission directed the Insurance Company to reimburse the Complainant for the insured amount (Rs. 29,03,244/-) along with interest. Additionally, the State Commission ordered Alvares and Thomas, One World Lines, Transit Logistics, and Maersk Lines (Opposite Party no. 2 to 6) to pay an additional compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh for mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs. 50,000/- for litigation costs.
