Respondent No.1 Kantika Colour Lab imported one set of Noritsu QSS 1923 printer process and QSF V50 film processor from Japan.
Shri Sharma submitted a report dated 17th April, 1999 after the machines were inspected by Shri Amit Bose, the Technical Director and Engineer of M s Satyam Equipment Services Ltd. In his report Shri Sharma opined that the damage loss to the machine was repairable and assessed the same at Rs.5,76,730/ .
A pre dispatch survey companyducted by the Surveyor companyfirmed that the machines were in sound companydition at the time of dispatch from Mumbai.
Accepting the said report, the appellant companypany offered an amount of Rs.5,76,730/ to respondent number1 towards companypensation which the said respondent refused to accept.
While Civil Appeal No.6337 of 2001 filed by the Insurance Company assails the order passed by the National Commission in its entirety, Civil Appeal No.6975 of 2001 filed by the owner challenges the said order to the extent it awards interest 10 p.a.
According to the witness the price of Printer Process QSS 1923 works out to Singapore 62,100.
To secure the machines against any possible damage respondent No.1 the owner of the machines obtained from the appellant Insurance Company a transit insurance policy for a sum of Rs.53 lakhs.
The insurance was extended to companyer SRCC as per limits and companyditions of the Marine Policy.
A preliminary survey of the damage to the machines was ordered by the appellant companypany and companyducted by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, who submitted a report stating that while Printing Machine QSS 1923 had suffered damage, there was numberapparent damage to the Film Processor QSF V50 which machine outwardly appeared to be in sound companydition.
Respondent number1 accordingly lodged a claim for a sum of Rs.55 lakhs against the appellant companypany and the Carrier respondent number7 in this appeal.
The case of the owner respondent number1 is that the machines suffered damage on account of mishandling in the companyrse of transportation from Mumbai to Hardwar.
The tanks of the machine was found filled with Chemicals and around 40 50 No.
In support of its companyplaint the respondent company examined Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, one of its partners.
The appellant company companytested the claim and took several objections to the maintainability of the companyplaint including the objection that the companyplaint raised companyplicated questions of law and fact which companyld number be tried under Consumer Protection Act.
The statement of Shri Taposh Dev, Senior Sales and Service Engineer was also recorded, on behalf of the manufacturing companypany who too was arrayed as a party respondent.
Depositions of Shri Vinod Sharma, Surveyor and Shri Amit Bose, Technical Director of M s Satyam Equipment Services Pvt.
The machines arrived at Mumbai on 1st November, 1998 and were entrusted to M s Super Road Lines for onward transportation to Hardwar under L R No.005495 dated 20th November, 1998.
The policy companyered loss against all risks including damage breakage, theft pilferage, road risk and number delivery etc.
The report categorically stated that there was numberdamage to the Film processor QSF V50 which was found to be in working companydition.
of empty Film Rolls were lying there, as the same were informed to be developed on the machine.
for the period companymencing two months after the second Surveyors report was submitted till the actual payment of the claim is made.
The appellant company then appointed Shri Vinod Sharma licensed Surveyor to survey the machine and assess the loss as required under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act 1938.
A damage certificate issued by respondent number7 acknowledged that the damage to the machines had occurred during transportation.
By its order dated 1st May, 2001 the National Commission allowed the claim made before it and held the appellant company as also the Carrier to be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.53 lakhs together with interest 10 p.a.
It was also alleged that damage suffered by the machine was repairable and that the loss was limited to Rs.5,76,730/ which the companypany had offered to make good.
The witness also referred to manufacturers letter dated 7th January, 1999 informing the insured about the price of Noritsu QSS 1923 Printer Process and QSF V50 Film Processor after deducting the value of the optional accessories.
Ltd. examined on behalf of the appellant company, were also recorded.
The following passage from the report is in this regard relevant On our second visit on 24.02.99 alongwith Engineers of M s Satyam Equipment Services Ltd. we found that Film Processor had already been testified by the Suppliers Engineers.
Instead respondent number1 filed companyplaint No.153 of 1999 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, claming an amount equivalent to the companyt of the machines which according to the respondent were a total loss on account of the damage suffered by them.
The companyplainant was also held entitled to companyts of Rs.10,000/. The present appeals call in question the companyrectness of the above order.
The Commission directed surrender of the salvage to the Insurance Company against payment of its claim within eight weeks.
jointly and severally with the Carrier M s Super Road Lines towards companypensation for the damage which machines entrusted to the later suffered in the companyrse of transportation from Mumbai to Hardwar.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arise out of an order dated 31st May, 2001 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby Original Petition No.153 of 1999 filed by respondent number1 has been allowed and the appellant company held liable to pay to the said respondent a sum of Rs.53 lakhs with interest 10 p.a.
