9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndon through the Foreign Post Office, New Delhi on 10-9-1990. However, the consignment did not reach the consignee and was believed to have been either stolen or lost in transit. The respondent had taken two insurance policies from the appellant-insurance company. The total sum assured was GBP 85,740.55 (c.i.f. value + 10%). W.K. Webster & Co., London, were appointed as Investigator and their report dated 25-3-1991 confirmed that the consignment had either been lost or stolen. Non-delivery certificate was issued by the Department of Posts (Foreign Post), New Delhi, in respect of the consignment. The postal authorities admitted their liability and made payment at the rate of Rs. 10,254.50 for each parcel representing the full-insured value a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensation for delayed payment. This order of the National Commission has been challenged before us. 3. We heard Mr. M.S. Nargolkar, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. V.A. Mohanty, the learned senior counsel, on behalf of the respondent. The dispute in this case is only with regard to the mode of payment to be effected by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The counsel for the respondent contended that, as per the terms of the policy, the insured amount was payable at London and, therefore, the payment to be effected has to be in Pounds Sterling. The consignment of the precious stones was dispatched in favour of Emdico (London) Ltd. As per the insurance policy, the claim for settlement was given to W.K. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "As regards the question whether we have remitted full payment of the value of the missing merchandise to our Indian suppliers, the answer is that we haven't done so, and we suggest that the settlement may be concluded direct with Sky Gems in India; however, if you will feel it is more convenient for you to deal with us as the consignees of the goods, we shall be happy to do so. One way or the other, it doesn't seem to make much difference." 5. From the above correspondence, it is evident that the consignee, Emdico (London) Ltd., did not pay the value of the missing merchandise to the respondent. There is no evidence to show that the necessary documents were endorsed in favour of the consignee, and that they were transferred to them. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the risk generally passes on shipment or as from shipment, but possession does not pass until the documents which represent the goods are handed over in exchange for the price. In the result, the buyer, after receipt of the documents, can claim against the ship for breach of the contract of carriage, and against the underwriters, for any loss covered by the policy. The strict form of the c.i.f. contract may, however, be modified. A provision that a delivery order may be substituted for a bill of lading or a certificate of insurance for a policy would not, I think, make the contract to be concluded on something other than c.i.f. terms". [Emphasis supplied] 7. From the above passage, it is clear that the right of the buyer to claim policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
