National commission decision set aside in "from anywhere in India to anywhere in India” case
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant- JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd., against the order passed by the National Commission, and the state commission has been dismissed in limine. The Insurance Company had offered the Appellant a Marine Cargo Open Policy that was effective from October 29, 2009, to October 28, 2010. On November 25, 2009, it was announced that the policy would be based on "sales turnover." On April 8, 2010, a second endorsement took effect, increasing the policy amount from Rs. 200 crores to Rs. 400 crores. The appellant imported aluminium ingots, which were received at the port's JNPT Terminal and then sent in eight containers from JNPT to Silvassa.
The State Commission has not correctly assessed the endorsements made in the policy, according to learned counsel for the appellant. The insurance limit was increased to $400 billion by endorsement dated 8.4.2010, for which an additional premium of about Rs. 2 lakh was paid, but the insurance company rejected the claim as if it only covered Rs. 200 billion. Surprisingly, the State Commission has not also taken note of this endorsement, dated 8.4.2010: The learned Counsel further stated that out of Rs. 400 crores, only the limit of Rs. 396 crores was exhausted, and there was still a limit of Rs. 3.89 crores to accommodate the present claim.
Therefore, the learned Counsel asked that the State Commission's order be revoked and the case be decided on its merits.
The respondent went on to say that the only issue brought up in the repudiation letter related to using up the entire insurance limit. As a result, the Insurance Company is unable to contest the "sales turnover" basis, which was endorsed on November 25, 2009.
The respondent claimed that the repudiation letter makes it clear that the insurance limit had already expired in May 2010 and that no new claims could therefore be taken into account. Moreover, the policy was based on a "sales turn-over basis" according to the endorsement dated 25.11.2009. The State Commission is very cryptic and omits specific information about why the complaint was rejected. Based on the information in the letter of repudiation, which stated that the insurance limit had been reached before the claim had arisen, the State Commission appears to have dismissed the complaint. The complainant refuted this claim and asserted that there was still a 3.89 crore rupee insurance limit available, making it incorrect to conclude that the total insurance limit had been reached without first obtaining the OP's version. If this were the only justification, the case could have been returned to the State Commission for a determination of the merits of the complaint, However, the reality is that after the endorsement dated 25.11.2009, the nature of the policy changed so that only the sold material was covered and not the imported material.
Although the State Commission hinted at this fact, they did not use it as justification to dismiss the complaint. In the agreement of 25-11-2009, the policy would be sales turnover basis mentioned is the insurance would be on a sales turnover basis on the material going out from two premises of the industry at Silvassa. There was no document presented to control word this is an ocean of the insurance company. The appellant was unable to prove that any imported material would also be included in the converted items under the policy even after the endorsement mentioned above
it was thus finally held that under these circumstances’ apex court set aside the decisions of the National Commission as also of the State Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for taking a decision afresh on the claim of the appellants on the grounds which formed the basis of repudiation and determine as to whether at the material point of time there was a sufficient balance to cover the claim on account of the declaration made as regards loss suffered by the appellants.
