NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. NIPHA EXPORTS PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 29,2006

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
NIPHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. MASTER CONSTRUCTION CO [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. OPERA CLOTHING [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
M.L. KATHURIA VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2013-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK ELECTRONICS & GIFT CORNER VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED [LAWS(NCD)-2012-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. BOGHARA POLYFAB PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
ANJUM NATH VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-283] [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LTD. VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(NCD)-2015-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
ASPAM PETRONERGY VS. GGM COMMERCIAL CONTAINER CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-487] [REFERRED]
KUKA RICE & GENERAL MILLS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2013-2-125] [REFERRED TO]
RADHESHYAM VS. DHANSINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2014-2-224] [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LAL SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. VALLABHBHAI NARANBHAI DOBARIA [LAWS(GUJCDRC)-2010-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NISSAN ELECTRONICS LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2014-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMA LIMTED VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2022-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR WOOLEN PVT. LTD VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2012-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KUKA RICE & GENERAL MILLS [LAWS(HRCDRC)-2007-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
LORIN GURUNG VS. SAKHI CHAND MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
P.P.S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD VS. ADVANCE VALVES PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-75] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K. Sema, J. - (1.)The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 8th September, 2004 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter the Commission) in Original Petition No. 42 of 1996. By the aforesaid order, the Commission directed the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., to pay interest @ 6% on Rs. 70,38,038/- from 10th December 1990 till 8th June, 1994 within a period of eight weeks by way of damages.
A limited notice was issued by this Court on 13.01.2005 on payment of interest @ 6% as damages by reason of delay in payment.

(2.)The sole question to be determined in this appeal is, as to whether there was any delay in making the payment of Rs. 70,38,038/- and if so, the insurance company, the appellant is liable to pay interest @ 6% for delay in payment as ordered by the Commission.
(3.)Few background facts may be noted:
In 1990, five transit insurance were obtained by the respondent herein for covering their consignment to Sudan for their principals i.e. M/s Sudan Gezire Rehabilitation Project, Khartoum, Sudan. The policies were issued subject to the terms and conditions. It was discovered that on arrival of the consignment there was some damage on account of rust. The investigations were carried out in respect of the transit of the consignment at the destination port to find out as to at which stage the damage to the consignment could have had occurred. A dispute was also raised between the parties as to who would be entitled to receive the claim amount as the shipment was on C.I.F. basis. Ultimately, the matter was resolved and the legalized documents of consignments were furnished to the appellant on 21.5.1993. Thereafter, various correspondences between the parties to accept the offer of the claim amount as offered by M/s American President Lines. It is alleged that till the letter dated 25.6.1993 written by the appellant there was no acceptance of the offer by the complainant-respondent herein and the matter was withheld at the instance of the complainant. There was also a dispute between the parties because in the policy, the machinery items were subject to institute replacement clause, which provided for the indemnity to be made only when the loss or damage suffered by the goods to the extent of actual cost of repairs, replacement and conditions effected and incurred. The complainant was also claiming that they had incurred out of pocket expenses and, therefore, the appellant was asking them to provide and furnish the necessary bills in support of total expenses incurred by them, which they failed to do and therefore, the matter was again referred to M/s Webster & Co. for making the investigation into the possible cost involved from M/s Nipha and their local suppliers, respondent herein.

Ultimately, M/s Webster by its letter dated 8.4.1994 settled the claim on the basis of consignment as done by the Surveyors.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.