IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 8770 of 2002(R) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.ELDHO, PARAVATTY HOUSE,THURUTHISSERY MAIKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THEE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, KALLOKKARAN SHOPPING COMPLEX,1 FLOOR, ANGAMALY -683 572. 2. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN,PULINAT BUILDINGS, 2ND FLOOR M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM 15. ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 15660 OF 2002 IN OP 8770 OF 2002 DISMISSED 11.8.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CARRIERS LIABILITY POLICY CONTAINING THE POLICY CONDITIONS. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.9.98 EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF M/S. G & M TRANSPORTING COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.3.2001 EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD NO.10/KCH/G1/25/2001-02 DATED 10.12.2001 EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.8.2001 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 8770 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 award whereunder the Insurance Ombudsman has upheld the order of the first respondent disowning liability under the Insurance policy for loss of goods. Petitioner's case is that goods carried by the petitioner's carrier covered by Ext.P1 insurance policy was lost in an accident and the petitioner had to suffer a loss of Rs. 2,75,763.68. When the Insurance company declined to own the liability petitioner approached the Insurance Ombudsman. However, on going through the detailed order issued by the Ombudsman, I find petitioner failed to prove the loss suffered by him. Counsel has now produced a document with correction, which shows that the transporting company which undertook the transport of the goods for Hindustan Lever has collected Rs. 2,75,763.68 from the petitioner. In the first place, petitioner has not explained why evidence was not produced before the Insurance Ombudsman at least. Secondly the 2 document produced does not prove that the owner of the goods has claimed the value of the goods lost in transit. Hindustan Lever is a reputed company and it is not known whether the transporter had borne the value of the goods lost by reimbursement of the same to the company, unless the company claimed value of the lost goods from the transporting company, there is no justification for them to demand it from the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence on these matters, the Insurance Ombudsman rightly turned down the claim of the petitioner and I find no justification to interfere in the matter. W.P.C. is accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3