Legal Aspects of Business

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2010

(Against the order dated 9.4.2010 in Appeal No.845/2008

of the State Commission, Rajasthan)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Delhi Region Office No.1,

8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

……….Petitioner

Versus

J.V.S. Food Pvt. Ltd.

Through C-345, Hans Marg,

Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

Rajasthan .........Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Nandwani, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Advocate

Mr. Kamal Chamaria, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON: 20.4.2011

ORDER

PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER:

1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order of Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.845/2008. The Revision Petitioner/United India Assurance Co. has prayed that the impugned order should be set aside. In the impugned order, the State Commission has come to a conclusion that the consignment of Fortified Corn Soya Blend Flour exported by the Respondent JVS Food Pvt. Ltd. to Cambodia, had got infested due to insect name Tribollium Castaneum during transit from India to Cambodia. Therefore, the Complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.6,14,883/- which he had to spend to make the consignment fit for consumption.

2. This order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is challenged by the Revision Petitioner, primarily on the grounds that –

(i) The State Commission has allowed additional evidence to be produced before it in the form of report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture. This report itself is of May, 2009 i.e. nearly four years after the goods were dispatched in July, 2005. Therefore, the report could not have been based on inspection of the goods in question.

(ii) State Commission has not given any ground for discarding the Surveyor's Report, which is an important document.

3. We have heard Sri K.L.Nandwani, counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the counsel for the Respondent/Complainant as well as perused the records of the case.

4. The facts, in very brief, are that 900 MT of Fortified Corn Soya Blend flour in 36,000 bags was exported fromJaipur to Cambodia in July, 2005. Before shipment from India, the consignment was delayed at Mumbai for about a month, due to heavy rain. The goods arrived in Cambodia in mid September, 2005, after about 45 days. A few days later, when the goods were unloaded in the warehouse in Cambodia, the contents were found infested by these worms. As we have already noted, the Complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs.614883/- for making the infested consignment fit for consumption.

5. His claim for payment of this expenditure under the policy, was repudiated by the RP/Insurance Company on 15.6.2006, on the basis of the report of the M/s. Eurogal Surveys, Cambodia. The Surveyor came to the conclusion that:-

"Fumigation will exterminate worms, grubs and adult bugs but does not affect un-hatched eggs that were present in the flour. In our opinion these eggs hatched into worms during the course of the transport and the worms grew into adult bugs starting new generations of infestation inside the bags.

Accordingly we are of the opinion that the infestation was the result of the presence of the vermin in the goods prior to shipment and was not the result of any external cause during the transport."

1. This report and repudiation based thereon, was accepted