w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Lekhraj Shevaram

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L66000MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2009PLC022300

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

    Appeal No. 92 of 2004

    Decided On, 31 March 2011

    At, Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Vizzy Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Authorised Representative.

Judgment Text

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the District Forum, Camp Jaipur by which while allowing the complaint of the respondent, the appellants have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,99,722 with interest as well as cost of litigation also.

2. The dispute is in regard to claim against the Open Marine Policy. The limit of the marine policy is not disputed. The accident of the vehicle has also not been disputed. The District Forum on the basis of report of the Surveyor has allowed the claim of the respondent as referred above.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant with all vehemence at his command submitted that as per the policy the coverage was made for the goods despatched from anywhere in Rajasthan to anywhere in India. However, the respondent while submitting declarations with the appellant at the time of despatch of the consignment has not included the consignments despatched within the State and as per policy it should be presumed that the consignments despatched from one place to another place within the State should also be included and as per the C.A. report, if such consignments are included during the relevant period the respondent had already exhausted the limit much prior to the date of accident.

4. Having considered submissions of the representative of the parties, we have carefully gone through the material on record. The interpretation as pressed by the Counsel for the appellant does not hold good in view of the clear conditions mentioned in the policy itself. Words are the consignment sent' from anywhere in Rajasthan' to 'anywhere in India'. If the interpretation of the Counsel for the appellant is accepted then there should have been clarification in the policy itself in regard to the consignments sent within the State of Rajasthan also. There is no allegation that the respondent had concealed any fact in regard to consignments sent from Rajasthan to other States in his declaration forms. Even otherwise Insurance Company is liable only on the basis of declarations duly submitted by the insured. If no declaration has been submitted by the insured as per policy the claim could not have been made for any such consignment.

5. Since on the basis of material available on record, relying on report of the assessor the District Forum has given just and proper directions, we find no error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interferenc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e in the present appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. The respondent may now withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with the District Forum and remaining compliance may be made by the appellant within 30 days. Appeal dismissed.