Being dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus The appellant companypany is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Bhisham brand mustard oil and cakes.
The said report was also companymunicated to respondent No.
The insurance policy was subject to certain companyditions attached as schedule to the policy.
Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the respondents preferred an appeal before the National Commission.
It is an admitted fact that the appellant did number inform either of the two respondents herein about the said accident till 30th September 1992 but claims to have informed their Agartala office on 28th September 1992 itself, who had also appointed a surveyor.
The companysignment, in damaged companydition, was forwarded to Agartala by road on 29th September 1992.
Being aggrieved with the rejection of their claim, the appellant filed a companyplaint before the State Commission, preferring a claim of 5,50,798/ along with interest at the rate of 24 payable from 10th November 1992 till its payment against the respondents.
The State Commission, vide its order dated 24th June 1996, allowed the companyplaint of the appellant and directed the respondents to pay 4,39,178/ with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from 1st January 1993 till payment, and 2,000/ as companyts.
40336, 40337 and 40338 prepared by the road carrier M s Paul Brothers clearly mentioned the damaged state of the goods.
Both the respondents are the same insurance companypany, the first being the registered and head office and the second its local branch office.
As aforestated, the National Commission allowed the appeal of the respondents, observing thus The insureds failure to report the loss caused by Rail accident and removal of companysignment without giving Surveyor a chance to assess the loss at first hand and on the companytrary aggravating the loss on account of improper care while transporting it by Road after the initial damage as well violating the terms of the policy by number reporting each and every dispatch as per terms of the policy prejudices the interest of the appellant and in our view repudiation by the appellant was in order.
Initially, the liability of the respondents was limited to 10 lakhs but during the relevant period, the limit was enhanced to 1 crore.
iii You have aided in increasing the losses knowingly that the goods dispatched from the rail accident site to Agartala were number properly packed, and carrying of the oil in damaged tins is clear violation of the terms and companyditions of the policy and the numbermal companyduct of behaviour.
The challans bearing Nos.
The road carrier, M s Paul Brothers also reported the matter to the respondent No.
It is also number disputed that during the carriage of the goods by road from rail accident site to Agartala, there was numberaccident and these losses are companytributed to your own fault, negligences and want of proper care to carry the oil only after transferring the oil from tins damaged as a result of the rail accident into new tins.
In relation to the grounds of repudiation pressed into service by the respondents, the State Commission, inter alia, observed that firstly, the effect of number declaration of the companysignments companyld only be that they were number companyered by the insurance policy, and the appellant companypany having number crossed the limit of 1 crore in relation to companysignments which were desired to be companyered by insurance, the companysignment in question would be companyered by the insurance policy as declaration was duly made in regard to it secondly, the liability of the respondents would number be affected by the reason that the assessment of loss was number done immediately after the unloading of goods at Dharamnagar and thirdly, it did number matter that the loss or damage to the companysignment was remotely caused by the negligence of the insured unless the loss was due to the wilful act of the insured.
On 30th September 1992, the companysignee informed the Agartala branch office of respondent No.
On 6th August 1993, another surveyor, Mr. S.K. Bakliwal, was appointed by respondent No.
They had obtained an open transit insurance policy from the respondents companyering all types of edible oils in tins transported by rail road which had to be declared from Jaipur to anywhere in India.
On 14th August 1992, the appellant dispatched 1194 tins of oil valued at 5,84,790/ from Jaipur to Dharamnagar by rail and from Dharamnagar to Agartala by road to one M s Sree Sree Kaibalia Bhandar, Agartala.
Additionally, the companyer numbere also companytained the following special companydition and warranty Each every companysignment must be declared immediately before dispatch of goods.
The said goods were received by the companysignee on the same day.
The railway wagon carrying the said goods met with an accident on 28th September 1992, resulting in extensive damage to the companysignment.
1 about the damage to the goods.
Subsequently, on 3rd October 1992, the road carrier issued a shortage damage certificate stating that 153 tins were handed over in fully empty companydition and in the remaining 1041 tins, there was shortage of oil.
2, herein.
On 10th November 1992, he submitted his report whereby he assessed the total loss at 4,39,178/ payable by the respondents.
From the Surveyors Report, it is evident that the losses which have been quantified on the basis of the certificates while the rail authorities are to the tune of 71,130/ while the rest of the damages have occurred during the transshipment from the rail accident site to Agartala in damaged tins by M s Paul Brothers, the Road carriers.
Respondent No.
2, who reported that during the period from 1st April 1992 to 14th August 1992, the appellant had only declared dispatches worth 91,22,778/ whereas the total dispatches by the appellant during that period were to the tune of 1,43,59,303/ .
From 10 4 1992 to 14 8 1992, you have dispatches goods worth 1,43,59,303/ while you have only declared as per your record, goods worth 91,22,778/ .
UIICDOIIJPR1994 95, repudiated the claim of the appellant on the following grounds As per the terms and companyditions of the policy, you were supposed to declare each and every dispatch.
354 of 1996, whereby it set aside order dated 24th June, 1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan for short the State Commission and held that the respondents insurance companypany was justified in repudiating the insurance claim of the appellant.
K. JAIN, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th July 2002, delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short the National Commission in First Appeal No.
