D. P. WADHWA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order of the Maharashtra State Commission by which order the State Commission had allowed the complaint of the respondent filed under Sections 17/18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). In fact, there were two complaints before the State Commission; in one complaint the claim of the complainant against the appellant was settled for Rs. 5,04,841.23 and the second for Rs. 9,99.500.00. The complainant was also awarded costs of Rs. 500.00 in each of the two complaints. In this judgment, the appellant M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is described as 'insurer', the respondent as 'complainant' or 'assignee' and M/s. Ajanta Paper and General Products Ltd. as the 'consignee' or 'assured'. The complainant is an assignee of two insurance policies taken out by M/s. Ajanta Paper and General Products Ltd., from the appellant being the insurer. One policy was to insure 244 bales computer wastes computer print out valued at Rs. 5,87,000.00 and the second was for 170 bales computer waste computer print out valued at Rs. 4,04,000.00 to cover the risk from the port of Antwaro to Bombay. The policies were taken out on 27/02/1984. By letter dated April 12, 1984 the consignee informed the insurer, the appellant herein, that it had been given to understand that due to strike in Indian Ports the vessel s.s. 'IRISH MAPLE' which was bringing the goods, had been diverted to Muscat and the cargo had been discharged there. The consignee, therefore, requested the insurer to cover the risk accordingly. The insurer replied by its letter dated 4/05/1984. It informed the consignee that the consignments in question were required to re-shipped from Muscat to Bombay within 60 days' time from the date the same were discharge at Muscat and that failing which there would be no liability of any claim covered under the two policies in question. The consignee again wrote to the insurer on 21/05/1984 informing it that the consignment had not been brought to Bombay by the steamer company and same was still lying at Muscat and further that consignee was arranging to bring the cargo from Muscat in order to avoid further delay, pilferage and damage and also to minimise financial losses. The consignee also stated in this letter that by doing so it was helping the insurer and, therefore, the additional expenditure such as freight from Muscat to Bombay, warehousing charge at Muscat and other incidental expenses that might be levied by the Steamer Company shall be on account of the insurer. It, therefore, requested the insurer to endorse the certificate for covering the risk for forced transhipment from Muscat to Bombay. By letter dated 24/05/1984 the insurer repeated what was written in its letter of 4/05/1984. It had informed the consignee that it was consignee's responsibility to arrange for the re-shipment of the consignment to Bombay within the specified time-limit and that insurer would not be responsible for any loss or damage resulting from non-cooperation of the steamer agent of the consignee in arranging re-shipment of Cargo to Bombay. The consignee was specifically told that under no circumstances insurer was liable for additional expenses incurred by the consignee by way of extra freight, warehousing etc. in the process of re-shipment of the cargo from Muscat to Bombay. Again on 2/06/1992 the consignee wrote to the insurer informing it that arrangement was being made to bring the cargo as early as possible. The insurer was, however, requested to extend the validity of the Certificate, while itself agreeing to pay necessary charges for the same. Again on 8/06/1984, the consignee informed the insurer that the shipping company had agreed to bring the cargo and that the subject consignment was being loaded per M. v. 'MICHEL C' which was expected at Bombay Port shortly, it may be noted that earlier the consignment was being brought by s.s. 'IRISH MAPLE' which had off-loaded the consignment at Muscat. The insurer acknowledged the letter of 2/06/1984 of the consignee but at the same time the request of the consignee for extension of the time beyond 60 days was not granted. The consignee was informed that on the expiry of 60 days' time limit from the date of discharge at the port of Muscat, the risk under the policy in question would cease. The consignee, being the insured, preferred a claim for Rs. 1,74,708.52 and for Rs. 3,99,007.52 on account of shortlanding of the consignment under transshipment and obtained the shortlanding certificates issued by the Bombay Port Trust docks of Bombay. The claim was, therefore, on account of shortage of goods.
(3.) IT would appear from the letter dated 25/07/1989 of the insurer to M/s. National Consultants (Proprietor Mr. S. N. Sainani, the complainant) that the policies had been assigned by the consignee in favour of M/s. National Consultants. By this letter the insurer acknowledged letter dated 18/07/1989 of the assignee. The insurer in this letter informed the assignee as under: "(i) The vessel carrying the insured consignments had diverted its course, and the consignments were discharged at Muscat, for onward carriage to Bombay. Our Marine insurance cover had ceased at this stage. Moreover no extension of insurance cover was obtained by you. (ii) Insured consignments were discharged at Bombay Ex Michelle 'C' on 30-7-84 where- as claims on ocean carriers were lodged on 16-7-85/17-7-85 respectively, i.e. about a year after discharging of the consignments. Further- more no extension of time-limit was obtained from them to safeguard our rights of recoveries. Our recoveries therefore are lost, as claims against carriers have now become time-barred/suit barred. Owing to the above irregularities/lapses, it will be appreciated that we have no liabilities to meet towards the above subject claims." On 23/07/1992 the assignee instituted two complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Bombay against the insurer alleging deficiency while rendering the service. The State Commission considered the question if by not extending the insurance cover during re-shipment and repudiating the insurance claim constituterd deficiency in service by the insurer. By the order dated 29/10/1994 it held against the insurer. The appeal of the insurer was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the order dated 30/09/1996. All this narration of events was necessary to understand the issues involved in the appeal. It is submitted by Mr. Midha, learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint was barred by limitation; that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act and under clause 9 of the policy the appellant was absolved from claim as the policy had lapsed.;