United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant-respondent is engaged in import of sugar and other items and in connection with import of 12,000 metric tons of sugar from China to Calcutta the respondent had taken an insurance policy for which cover note dated 9.6.1994 and policy was valid from 23.9.1994 i.e. from the date of issue. The policy was further extended by endorsement dated 28.9.1994 for up-country destinations in India. It was alleged that after taking delivery of sugar, the bags could not be transported from the dock area because of Durga Puja celebrations and as a result of which all activities including transportation facilities virtually came to a stand still from 10.10.1994. Therefore, in all 82,237 bags of sugar were temporarily stored in T-sheds at Calcutta Port area en route up-country destinations. On 21.10.1994 fire broke out in the godown and destroyed the entire stock of sugar bags. Hence, a First Information Report was lodged and the appellant- Insurance Company was also informed by the respondent. The appellant appointed M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. on 22.10.1994. On 24.10.1994 the Surveyors wrote to the respondent asking for the books of accounts and stock register and also took the spot inspection. The appellant appointed one N.V.P. Sharma Associates Pvt. Ltd. as another additional surveyor. Since the claim was not settled by the appellant- Insurance Company, the respondent filed the present complaint before the Commission on 21.3.1996. The appellant on 6.5.1996 repudiated the claim of the respondent. The letter dated 6.5.1996 reads as under :

The plea of the appellant-Insurance company for repudiating the present claim was that the goods were destroyed in general storage other than in the ordinary course of transit and it was also observed that what was covered was transit risk and not storage risk. Therefore, it was held that the claim was not maintainable. The Commission examined the relevant provisions and took the view that as per the Institute Cargo clause and extended coverage to the policy on payment of additional amount, the insurance cover of the goods would be till the delivery to the consignees at the destination named therein i.e. the insurance coverage was valid till the goods were delivered to the consignees' warehouse or other final warehouse or the place of storage at the destination. Ultimately, the Commission decreed the claim of the respondent. Hence the present appeal.

It further says that so far as law and practice is concerned this insurance was subject to English law and practices. As per this transit clause of the Institute Cargo clause, the policy covered on delivery to the consignee's or other final warehouse, or place of storage at the destination named therein. It further laid down the period, that on expiry of 60 days after completion of discharge overside of the goods insured from the overseas vessels at the final port of discharge, whichever shall first occur. As per the policy, the destination was Calcutta Port, India. This policy was extended by the subsequent cover note as mentioned above and it was mentioned that the policy was extended to cover from Calcutta Port to any other place of destination in Indian Republic and the terms and conditions of the policy remained unaltered.

19. As a result of our above discussion, we find that the view taken by the Commission appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Commission except to the extent of interest as indicated above. Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.