The claim was, therefore, on account of shortage of goods.
The appeal of the insurer was dismissed by the national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the order dated September 30,1996.
ii Insured companysignments were discharged at Bombay ex Michalle C on 30.7.84 where as claims on ocean carriers were lodged on 16.7.85/17.7.85 respectively, i.e. about a year after discharging of the companysignments.
preferred a claim for Rs.
By the order dated October 29, 1994 it held against the insurer.
1,74,708,52 and for Rs.
Our Marine insurance companyer had ceased at this stage.
The Consignee was specifically told that under numbercircumstances insurer was liable for additional expenses incurred by the companysigned by way of extra freight.
the respondent as companyplainant or assigned and M s Ajanta Paper and Several products Ltd. as the companysignee or assured.
by letter dated April 12, 1984 the companysignee informed the insurer, the appellant herein that at had been given to understand that due to strike in Indian ports the vessel s.s IRISH MAPLE which was bringing the goods, had been diverted to Muscat and the Cargo had been discharged there.
9,99,500/ .
Moreover numberextension of insurance companyer was obtained by you.
IRISH MAPLE which had off loaded the companysignment at muscat.
The companyplaint was also awarded companyts of Rs.500/ in each of the two companyplaints.
The state Commission companysidered the question if by number extending the insurance companyer during re shipment and repudiating the insurance claim companystituted deficiency in service by the insurer.
3,99,007,52 on account of short handing of the companysignment under transshipment and obtained the short handing certificates issued by the Bombay port Trust docks of Bombay.
All this narration of events was necessary to understand the issues involved into the appeal.
4,04,000/ to companyer the risk from the port of onward to Bombay.
The companysignee, being the insured.
In fact there were two companyplaints before the State Commission in one companyplaint the claim of the companyplainant against the appellant was settled for Rs.5.54,841,23 and the second for Rs.
The insurer acknowledged the letter of June 2, 1984 of the companysignee but at the same time the request of the companysigned for extension of the time beyond 60 days was number granted.
It would appear from the letter dated July 25, 1989 of the insurer to M s. national companysultants proprietor Mr. N. Sainani, the companyplainant that the policies had been assigned by the companysigned in favour of M S National Consultants.
One policy was to insure 244 bales companyputer wastes companyputer prints out valued at Rs.
J. Leave granted.
P. Wadhwa.
This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disoutes redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the appellant and companyfirming the order of the Maharashtra State Commission by which order the State companymission had allowed the Complaint of the respondent filed under sections 17/16 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 for short the Act .
On July 23,1992 the assignee instituted two companyplaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The insurer in this letter informed the assigned as under The vessel carrying g the insured companysignments had diverted its companyrse, and the companysignments wore discharged at Muscat, for onward carriage to Bombay.
The companyplainant is an assigned of two insurance policies taken out by M s Ajanta paper and General products Ltd., from the appellant being the insurer.
5,87,000/ and the second was for 170 bales companyputer waste companyputer print out valued at Rs.
In this judgment, the appellant M s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is described as insurer.
The pointed were taken out on February 27,1984.
By this letter the insurer acknowledged letter dated July 18,1989 of the assignee.
Maharashtra State, Bombay against the insurer alleging deficiency while rendering the service.
