A.P. Sahi, President

1. The complainant company is a manufacturer of medicines and is also engaged in the business of distribution and export of its products. An order was received by the complainant for a consignment of Lavigra and Pyrental tablets from M/s Stanfordtrade Limited, United Kingdom. The consignment was to be transhipped from India to Ukraine. Two invoices for the medicines were prepared dated 20.01.2010 for medicines worth USD1,10,462.12.

2. The shipment was to be transported from the factory unit warehouse at Khopoli in Maharashtra to Nhava Sheva Port,Mumbai from where it was to be sent by ship to Ukraine. According to the complainant, in order to secure transhipment, the Opposite Party - Insurance Company was contacted and two invoices were sent seeking insurance covers and according to the complainant, same was negotiated with the Insurance Company by sending the invoices on 21.10.2010. The complainant also alleges to have forwarded the premium payable for the coverage of the risk in respect of both the invoices and for issuance of two policies.

3. According to the complainant, with this arrangement of insurance coverage, the goods were despatched from Khopoli, Maharashtra warehouse and they reached Punjab Conware, which is the custom bonded warehouse of M/s Punjab State Container and Warehousing Corporation Limited ( A Govt. of Punjab undertaking) at Dronagiri near Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai.

4. According to the complainant, the Additional Drug Controller inspected the goods at the Punjab Conware warehouse on 25.01.2010 and the Custom officials also approved of the same with endorsements on the two shipping bills dated 23.01.2010. The complainant alleges that even though the complainant had made the payment for the premiums on 21.01.2010, the policy documents had not been received by it and after following it up, the complainant was asked to fill up the declaration forms on 29.01.2010 and on the same day, the two policies were made available to the complainant. According to the complainant, the transit of the goods right from the Warehouse at Khopoli at its factory upto the Warehouse in Dronagiri and its onward journey by sea upto Ukraine, were all covered under the policy.

5. Unfortunately, on 31.01.2010, a massive fire broke out at Punjab Conware Warehouse and the entire consignment kept in Goods Shed Godown no. G-3 was destroyed. According to the complainant, since he had an insurance coverage, referred to above received on 29.01.2010, a claim was made before the Insurance Company with due intimation on 02.02.2010 and 03.02.2010, whereupon permission was sought from the Warehouse for getting the survey conducted. The Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and a Marine Survey report was tendered on 25.02.2010. Pursuant to the survey, the Insurance Company declined to indemnify the claim on the ground that as per the Surveyor's report, the claim did not fall under the purview of the policy. This repudiation is dated 13.05.2010. The same is extracted hereinunder:

6. Aggrieved, the complainant moved a request before various authorities including a complaint before the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and a request to the Insurance company, whereupon certain queries were raised by it and the complainant was intimated that the said request was under process, about which intimation shall be given later on.

7. The contention of Mr. Jena is that the OP Insurance Company rectified its own policy whereupon two endorsements were issued on 14.06.2011. This is being pointed out from the written submissions of the OP dated 16.12.2024, paragraph IV(e) which is to the following effect:

                          "endorsement no. 13130021110182000026 with respect to specific voyage policy no. 111100/21/09/01/00002129, was issued on 14/06/2011, and similarly, endorsement no. 13130021110182000027 was also issued, with respect to specific voyage policy no. 111100/21/09/01/00002130 ... it was stated that "it is hereby agreed and declared that the place of starting of the consignment is to be read as from Khapoli to Ukraine, via JNPT, and not as mentioned as in the policy"."

8. It is urged that the said endorsements were forwarded to the surveyor through the letter dated 16.06.2011 to take notice of it and proceed accordingly. Mr. Jena therefore submits that the OP through its own documents directs the commencement of the consignment to be read from Khopoli to Ukraine via J.N.P.T., Nhara Sheva. He submits that the rectification would apply from inception and therefore the policy stood rectified by the OP itself, hence an argument to the contrary cannot be raised.

9. He then submits that the contention raised by the OP that the endorsement would be effective only from the date of the issuance and would not be effective as from the date of the incident i.e. 31.01.2010 is an untenable argument. He submits that the rectification is of an error which applies from the date of the issuance of the policy and is not a prospective amendment. He supplements this argument by contending that there was no question of any amendment being applied prospectively and it was a single shipment of consignment with no future voyage as the consignment was destroyed on 31.01.2010 itself. It is urged that the said rectified endorsement was dispatched to the surveyor for reviewing his recommendations in respect of the earlier claim. Accordingly, the surveyor then issued the addendum on 05.09.2011 where he has described the description of the marine risk locations / destinations as an obvious typographical error and the endorsement has to be read as a journey from origin anywhere in India.

10. Mr. Jena submits that this is a communication between the OP and their surveyor with a recital to amend the recommendations and it is thereafter that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 49,62,325.81p for both the policies. It is therefore urged that once the affidavit of the OP and the surveyor as well as the written submissions admit the addendum, there was no reason to deviate from the same and hence the repudiations dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012 could not have been issued ignoring the same. He therefore submits that the phrase "warehouse to warehouse" would include the movement of the goods from Khopoli itself and would stand covered at least from 29.01.2010 at Dronagiri where it was stationed in the warehouse deployed by the complainant. At the time of the issuance of the policy, the goods were lying in the Punjab Conware warehouse and therefore even assuming that the policy was issued only on 29.01.2010, the goods had already moved and were waiting for being shipped through the vessel from Nhava Sheva, Mumbai The goods stood secured under the policy.

11. This would therefore fall within the definition of the word "transit" as explained in the judgments relied on by him and which also stands covered by the terms of the policy which recites "ordinary course of transit" also and protected under Section 4(1) of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963. He has also relied on the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Manhattan Exports where the loss for a different set of goods suffered was in the same fire at Dronagiri in an Arbitration Petition No. 1708 of 2015, decided on 24.04.2019.

12. The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator, who sought informations from the complainant, that was responded to, and the Investigator tendered his report on 27.04.2012 whereafter, claims in respect of both the policies were repudiated by two separate letters dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012. Aggrieved by the said action of the Insurance Company the present complaint was filed, alleging deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice.

13. Notices were issued and the Insurance Company filed its written statement / reply on 20.02.2014 denying all the allegations, principally taking a stand that the incident had occurred on 31.01.2010 and the policy that had been issued on 29.01.2010 did not cover the risk of the goods stored at the Warehouse. The policy was confined only to the Sea Voyage of the consignment from Nhava Sheva, Mumbai Port to Port Odessa, Ukraine. It was stated in the reply that the policy was a single 'Special Voyage Policy' and was not an Open Policy. The policy itself categorically describes the coverage of the risk between the two destinations from Nhava Sheva Port to Port Odessa, Ukraine on the consignment being carried on the Vessel. The stand is that it is only the Sea Voyage of the goods that was covered as a risk under the two policies. It is also the stand of the Insurance company that the claim of the insurance coverage extending backwards w.e.f. 25.01.2010 on its despatch from Khopoli in Maharashtra is untenable in as much as the premium itself was collected only on 29.01.2010 and, therefore, there cannot be any retrospective effect of the policy, so as to cover the risk from 25.01.2010 itself. The submission is that the phrase 'Warehouse to Warehouse' does not include the coverage of the factory warehouse at Khopoli or even the Punjab Conware Warehouse, where it had reached on 25.01.2010. The policy had not commenced at all on 25.01.2010 and its issuance on 29.01.2010 covered only the Sea Voyage, the goods being transhipped by Vessel only.

14. A rejoinder to the same has been filed by the complainant and affidavit of evidence has also been brought on record. The complainant has filed its affidavit of evidence on 01.04.2016. The Opposite Party filed its affidavit of evidence through the Manager of the New India Assurance Company dated 20.09.2016. The Opposite Party has also filed an affidavit of evidence of Surveyor Mr. A. M. Gawarikar on 25.10.2016 and another affidavit of evidence of the Investigator M/s Bright and Company dated 27.09.2016. Copy of the Investigator's report (Bright and Company) is extracted hereinunder:

15. With all the aforesaid evidence and documents on record, the matter had been heard by us on 20.11.2025, when the following order was passed:

Heard Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the complainant, who submits that in view of the terms of the policy, which was a Specific Voyage Policy, as well as the declaration form and the journey undertaken by the goods, the same were covered under the risk coverage of the policy that suffered loss in the Customs Bonded Warehouses at JNPT Navi Mumbai.

The submission is that the journey had already commenced according to the terms of the policy and the risk covered is from Warehouse to Warehouse. The goods therefore had left the Warehouse of the complainant and it was midway stationed at the Customs Bonded Warehouse from- where it had to be shipped to Ukraine. The consignment was of medicines, which was destroyed in a fire in the Bonded Warehouse. The submission therefore is that under the terms of the policy the claim was indemnifiable but the same was repudiated not once but twice on erroneous grounds, the first repudiation being on 13.05.2010 and the second on 29.06.2012. He has also urged that the surveyor's report dated 25.02.2010 records the quantum of loss and the assessment therefore ought to have been respected by the Insurance Company, yet, on an erroneous interpretation of the terms of the policy, the claims have been repudiated, hence the complaint deserves to be allowed.

Adv. Aditya Kumar has appeared online on behalf of the opposite party/Insurance Company and opposed the stand of the complainant. He submits that the matter may be taken up for hearing on some other day to enable him to be present physically in order to demonstrate the various documents that are required to be gone into for deciding the controversy.

Let the matter be listed on 26.02.2026.

16. Arguments proceeded on 26.02.2026 when Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the complainant concluded his arguments. The order dated 26.02.2026 is extracted hereinunder:

Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the complainant, advanced his submissions today urging that it is on the strength of the invoice dated 20.01.2010 that the insurance was sought to be acquired, for which a cash amount of the premium was handed over on 21.01.2010. There is however no direct evidence with regard to the same, yet Mr. Jena urged that such a cash payment had been made.

He then submits that on 25.01.2010 the goods left the factory by road to the bonded warehouse, namely, M/s Punjab Conware Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. On 27.01.2010 an inspection was conducted by the Customs Department and the insurance policy cover was issued on 29.01.2010. Thus, the payment of the premium and the issuance of the policy were completed as per the declaration given and the policy was from warehouse to warehouse. The date of the loss is 31.01.2010. It is therefore urged that the loss itself has occurred after the policy had been duly issued and hence the risk stands covered and the loss deserves to be indemnified.

He has then invited the attention of the Bench to the first survey report dated 25.02.2010 and has read out the letter of repudiation dated 13.05.2010 contesting the same on the ground that the claim could not have been declined as the goods had been appropriately declared with clear details of the consignor to the consignee, including the details of the warehouse address. The contention of Mr. Jena is that the freight forwarding bills had also been issued on 23.01.2010.

The commencement of the journey of the goods therefore had already begun and noticing the same, the warehouse to warehouse policy was given. The Insurance Company was therefore well aware of the transit of the goods by road to the bonded warehouse in Mumbai for undertaking its onward Nhaval journey after being loaded on the vessel. He therefore contends that there was a complete coverage and for that he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 626, Paragraphs 14 to 17 and Paragraph 36 in particular, to explain the meaning of the words transit and warehouse to warehouse transportation. Mr. Jena has cited two other decisions in the cases of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 18 SCC 376, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 1.

Mr. Jena therefore urged that with the entire evidence on record, the claim is liable to be allowed.

While advancing his submissions, he has read out the declaration form, the specific voyage policy along with the ICC- A Clauses to substantiate his submissions regarding the explanation of warehouse to warehouse transit. He has urged that the claim had been hurriedly repudiated and on the representations being made and the facts being brought on record, it was reopened vide intimation dated 21.03.2012. The two communications dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012 again intimating of closing of claim and rejecting of the same as no claim have also been read out.

He has also urged that the reply given in the present complaint by the opposite party that the storage risk was not covered while being stacked at Nhava Sheva is incorrect and is not outside the scope of marine transit policy.

Subject to the arguments of Mr. Aditya Kumar on behalf of the opposite party, he submits that he will continue with his submissions in rejoinder.

List on 24.07.2026.

17. The complaint was finally argued on 24.07.2026 when Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company advanced his submissions, contending that none of the submissions raised, hold water in as much as there was no policy in existence on 25.01.2010 when the goods were despatched from Khopoli Warehouse in Maharashtra. He submits that there is no question of even the commencement of the transhipment or it being intended to be covered under the policy when the policy itself came into existence with the collection of the premium only on 29.01.2010. He, therefore, submits that the duration of the policy cannot be with effect from a retrospective date and is not covered and the transit prior to the issuance of the policy is not covered at all.

18. He then submits that the Declaration Form which has been relied on by the learned counsel, were a sort of proposal and were not Declaration Forms as in a Marine policy, which is only required in the case of an Open policy. Such declarations are to be made for an Open Voyage policy, whereas in the present case, the policies are clearly 'Specific Voyage Policies'. He further submits that this is fortified by the fact that it categorically recites the journey from Nhava Sheva port Mumbai to Odessa in Ukraine. It nowhere refers to Khopoli Maharashtra as a place of the commencement of the journey. Secondly, the transhipment has been categorically stated to be by Vessel, and not by road transport for any Inland transit in India. He submits that the phrase 'Warehouse to 'Warehouse' in the present context only means the bonded Warehouse at Nhava Sheva port in Mumbai and not to any other Warehouse. He submits that the Punjab Conware Warehouse is at Dronagiri, almost 18 kms away from Nhava Sheva, and, therefore, the movement of the goods from Khopoli to the Punjab Conware Warehouse at Dronagiri was not a movement covered under the risk.

19. The issuance of the policy on 29.01.2010 was exclusively in respect of the Sea Voyage and it is for this reason, only a Specific Voyage Policy had been issued to be covered by Sea only. The submission is that no part of Inland transit was ever intended to be covered and since the goods and the consignment had not reached Nhava Sheva Port, and were housed at Punjab Conware Warehouse at Dronagiri on 25.01.2010, the journey of the goods by Sea under the policy dated 29.01.2010 had not commenced at all. Mr. Aditya Kumar, therefore, submits that unless the journey commences as per the duration clause 8 read with clause 11, there is no coverage available and in the instant case, the coverage was only in respect of the Sea Voyage, that did not include the Inland transit from the factory premises to any place midway or even nearby the port. He submits that the goods had not reached Nhava Sheva port at all, and therefore, Warehouse at Dronagiri was never intended to be covered under the policy dated 29.01.2010.

20. Mr. Aditya Kumar further submitted that complainant has lodged his claim with the Punjab Warehouse Corporation as well as the Clearing and Forwarding Agents and there is nothing to indicate as to whether the Bonded warehouse was also insured or any claim made in this respect. It would therefore be reasonable to presume that claims for the loss of goods must have been made by the complainant at other levels also, about which facts are not being disclosed here. He submits that the fact of the claims having been lodged is evident from the letter dated 30.03.2010, the contents of para 5(i) of the complaint and the replies given by the complainant to the queries raised by the Investigator and he, therefore, submits that in the given circumstances, no claim is indemnifiable as against the O.P.

21. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments and have also relied on the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act,1963, The Institute Cargo Clauses (A), judgments on the propositions advanced by the learned counsel that has already been referred to in the arguments recorded on 26.02.2026 on behalf of the complainants and following decisions that have been relied on by Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company:

                          a. Deokar Export ( P) Ltd.Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 598

                          b. Polymat India ( P) Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2005) 9 SCC 174

                          c. National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Chief Electoral Officer (2023) 6 SCC 441

                          d. Industrial Promotion and Investment Corpn. Of Orissa Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 2016) 15 SCC 315

                          e. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International (2014) 1 SCC 686

                          f. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills (2000) 10 SCC 19

                          g. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2009 ) 7 SCC 787

22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to all these submissions, the documents on record as also the decisions relied on. In order to assess and analyse the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to dwell into the contract of the policy as the same would define as to the nature and intent of the contract of the insurance. We may, therefore, refer to decisions cited on behalf of the complainant in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd (supra) where Apex Court in paragraph 15 and 16 has briefly stated the principles that govern the interpretation of insurance contracts. The same is extracted hereinunder:

                          15. MacGillivray on Insurance Law [ Sweet and Maxwell, 12th Edn. (2012)] elucidates the principles which govern the interpretation of insurance contracts:

                          "11-007 It is an accepted canon of construction that a commercial document, such as an insurance policy, should be construed in accordance with sound commercial principles and good business sense, so that its provisions receive fair and sensible application. Several consequences flow from this principle ...

                          11-008 It follows that in interpreting any clause of a policy, it is correct to bear in mind : (1) the commercial object or purpose of the contract; and (2) the purpose or function of the clause and its apparent relation to the contract as a whole...."

                          16. The provisions of an insurance contract must be imparted a reasonable business-like meaning bearing in mind the intention conveyed by the words used in the policy document. Insurance policies should be construed according to the principles of construction generally applicable to commercial and consumer contracts. The court must interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties and not embark upon making a new contract for the parties. A reasonable construction must therefore be given to each clause in order to give effect to the plain and obvious intention of the parties as ascertainable from the whole instrument. The liability of the insurer cannot extend to more than what is covered by the insurance policy. In order to determine whether the claim falls within the limits specified by the policy, it is necessary to define exactly what the policy covered and to identify the occurrence of a stated event or the accident prior to the expiry of the policy. Hence, while considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to preface our analysis with the provisions of the policy.

23. We may, therefore, straightaway refer to the exact nature of the policies and the process through which they were acquired. The invoices of the goods are dated 20.01.2010 and according to the complainant, they were tendered to the Insurance Company alongwith the premium on 21.10.2010. It is settled law that the policy commences only after the premium amount is received by the Insurance Company and not prior to that, unless there is an express agreement to that effect. Reference be had to Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The only exception is in respect of losses occurred before the contract of insurance as contemplated under clause 11 of the Institute Cargo Clauses (A). We may point out that the two Specific Voyage Policies in the present case also incorporate the aforesaid Institute Cargo Clause (A) as applicable to the policies.

24. The said Institute Cargo Clause in Clause 8.1 recites that the insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the Warehouse or place of storage 'at the place named therein for the commencement of the transit' and thereafter continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates in either of the contingencies referred to therein. Clauses 8.1 and 11 are extracted hereinunder for ready reference:

                          DURATION 8 8.1 This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the warehouse or place of storage at the place named herein for the commencement of the transit, continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates either 8.1.1 on delivery to the Consignees' or other final warehouse or place of storage at the destination named herein, 8.1.2 on delivery to any other warehouse or place of storage, whether prior to or at the destination named herein, which the Assured elect to use either 8.1.2.1 for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit or 8.1.2.2 for allocation or distribution, or 8.1.3 on the expiry of 60 days after completion of discharge over side of the goods hereby insured from the oversea vessel at the final port of discharge, whichever shall first occur.

                          8.2 If, after discharge overside from the oversea vessel at the final port of discharge, but prior to termination of this insurance, the goods are to be forwarded to a destination other than that to which they are insured hereunder, this insurance, whilst remaining subject to termination as provided for above, shall not extend beyond the commencement of transit to such other destination.

                          8.3 This insurance shall remain in force (subject to termination as provided for above and to the provisions of Clause 9 below) during delay beyond the control of the Assured, any deviation, forced discharge, reshipment or transhipment and during any variation of the adventure arising from the exercise of a liberty granted to shipowners or charterers under the contract of affreightment.

                          xx x x x

                          CLAIMS

                          11 11.1 In order to recover under this insurance the Assured must have an insurable interest in the subject-matter insured at the time of the loss.

                          11.2 Subject to 11.1 above, the Assured shall be entitled to recover for insured loss occurring during the period covered by this insurance, notwithstanding that the loss occurred before the contract of insurance was concluded, unless the Assured were aware of the loss and the Underwriters were not.

25. A perusal of both the policies indicate that the journey by Sea on a Vessel is the subject matter of the policy. The destinations are specifically mentioned from Nhava Sheva Port Mumbai India to Odessa in Ukraine on a Vessel. The reference to 'Warehouse to Warehouse' would, therefore, include the Warehouse from the place where the journey commences and to the place where the journey terminates, which in the present case is the Nhava Sheva Port and not any other place. The Declaration Form which was filled up on the same day of the issuance of the policy refers to the journey by Sea but mentions the name of Khopoli to Ukraine. This description in the Declaration Form which seems to be in the form of a proposal, is not to be found in the contract of insurance, which is the policy schedule. Even assuming that the said form had been filled up mentioning Khopoli, same does not find mention in the policy where the journey has been clearly defined from Nhava Sheva, Mumbai to Odessa in Ukraine. The policies nowhere refer to Khopoli. The declaration form itself indicates that transhipment has to be at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai, which is the Nhava Sheva Port. The journey has been also mentioned by Sea and not by any Inland transit. The declaration form also refers to an Open policy which does not match with the policy at all, which is a Specific Voyage Police and not an Open policy. Applying the ratio of a decision in the case of Bajaj Allianz (supra), the policy cannot be interpreted by us on the basis of a wrong declaration form or a form indicating an incorrect description, which does not tally with the contract of insurance. If at all the coverage was intended from Khopoli onwards, the same would have been stated in the policy that was issued on 29.01.2010. This would also not be logically possible, inasmuch as, journey from Khopoli had already come to an end on 29.01.2010 as the consignment had arrived at Dronagiri Punjab Conware Warehouse on 25.01.2010 itself. The question of, therefore, covering the risk of the goods from Khopoli did not arise at all in a declaration form that was filled up on 29.01.2010. The declaration itself, as made in the form, was clearly defective and seems to have erroneously included the name of Khopoli when the goods had already arrived at Dronagiri on 29.01.2012. The date of declaration form is the same and, therefore, it could not have mentioned the location of Khopoli as the destination of commencement of consignment. We have our doubts about the form itself on the aforesaid analysis and we also do no find any necessity of the declaration form being filled up for a Specific Voyage Policy. The form would have been necessary for an Open Policy, which is not the case in the present matter. We do not find any explanation on behalf of the complainant or any cogent material to infer that the policy was intended to cover the consignment right from its commencement from Khopoli onwards.

26. On a plain reading of the policy and the clear intention of the transhipment of the goods by Sea through Specific Voyage Policy is clearly evident and was, therefore, intended to have coverage of the risk only from Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai to Odessa in Ukraine.

27. We, further, find that there is no mention about the goods being kept in transit at Punjab Conware Warehouse when the policy was issued on 29.01.2010. No Inland transit journey was even referred to and, therefore, we find it difficult to bring in the storage at Punjab Conware Warehouse at Dronagiri within the fold of 'Warehouse to Warehouse' as referred to in the policy. There is no explanation by the complainant with any contemporaneous material about tendering any information to the Insurance Company that the goods were in transit at Dronagiri Punjab Conware.

28. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the complainant to urge that the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act cover Inland Transit as well would not apply on the facts of the present case where journey by Sea cannot be said to have commenced at all as the consignment had not reached Nhava Sheva port. It was kept in a warehouse more than 12 kms away at Punjab Conware Bonded Warehouse at Dronagiri, which cannot be construed to be the warehouse for the purpose of coverage under the policy where the premium was collected on 29.01.2010 only for a Sea voyage exclusively without any disclosure of the goods having arrived at Dronagiri. The impression given in the Declaration form dated 29.01.2010 was as if the goods were commencing the journey from Khopoli whereas the goods had already arrived at Dronagiri on 25.01.2010 itself. This was a clear deceptive disclosure against actual transit of the goods.

29. We now come to a very crucial part of the dispute on facts, where the learned counsel for the complainant urges that when the matter was agitated before the Regulatory Authority, the Insurance Company itself wrote a letter on 16.06.2011 to the surveyor to take notice of the endorsements made on the policies on 14.06.2011. Even though the endorsements in respect of both the policies have been referred to in the evidence affidavit of Mr. Ram Narayan Chakrawarty, Manager, New India Insurance Company in paragraph 13, we did not find a copy of the letter dated 16.06.2011 attached to the said affidavit nor the endorsements indicated as Ex. OPW1/6. Paragraph 13 of the said affidavit is extracted hereinunder:

                          13. I say that subsequently the Opposite Party issued an endorsement (EXHIBIT OPW1/6) which was sent to the surveyor for observations vide letter dated 16.06.2011 (EXHIBIT OPW1/7).

30. However, during the course of submissions, Mr. Aditya Kumar has produced a copy of the same endorsement dated 14.06.2011 that is extracted hereinunder:

31. Mr. Jena strongly relying on the same also points out that the surveyor Mr. Gavarikar has also endorsed the said fact in his evidence affidavit which is on record wherein paragraph 8 it is stated as under:

                          8. I say that subsequently the Opposite Party issued an endorsement which was supplied to us for observations vide letter dated 16.06.2011.

32. He therefore submits that this clearly confirms the endorsements which in no uncertain terms were carried out and incorporated by the Insurance Company that the journey had commenced from Khopoli and that the entire risk stood covered in transit from Khopoli onwards.

33. Mr. Jena further submits that it is on the strength of the said endorsement that an addendum report dated 05.09.2011 was tendered which fact is also admitted in the evidence affidavit of the Insurance Company in paragraph 14 and in the evidence affidavit of the surveyor in paragraph 9. He submits that the addendum issued on 05.09.2011 by the surveyor establishes the claim of the complainant. He also points out that the addendum report has nowhere been considered in the letters of repudiation in the present case. The addendum dated 05.09.2011 is extracted hereinunder:

34. Mr. Jena therefore submits that with these documents on record when the matter was proceeded with that queries were raised through the letter dated 01.11.2011 by the Insurance Company to which a reply was given on 12.12.2011. The reply of the complainant is extracted hereinunder:

35. It is urged that on receiving the said response that the matter was reopened on 21.03.2012 intimating the complainant that the matter was under process. The letter dated 21.03.2012 is extracted hereinunder:

36. The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator M/s. Bright & Co. who had also called for information from the complainant to which the complainant responded by the letter dated 11.03.2012. The same is extracted hereinunder:

37. It is thereafter that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide the letters dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012 which are extracted hereinunder:

38. Mr. Jena contends that this repudiation is contrary to the endorsements dated 14.06.2011 as admitted to the Insurance Company and the surveyor in their affidavits, and also not in accordance with the Surveyor's addendum report dated 05.09.2011 extracted hereinabove. He points out that the addendum categorically indicates that there is an obvious typographical error in the original policy and he therefore submits that the journey commenced from Khopoli and the loss having been assessed in the addendum deserves to be indemnified.

39. Countering the said submissions, Mr. Aditya Kumar has invited the attention of the Bench to the Investigation Report dated 27.04.2012 of M/s. Bright & Co. that has been substantiated by the affidavit of the Investigator and filed on record dated 27.09.2016 clearly stating therein that their report is correct. The investigator's report dated 27.04.2012 has already been extracted hereinabove. It is then pointed out that the surveyor had also in his final survey report dated 25.02.2010 categorically recorded that the risk did not attach unless the journey commenced and the claim was accordingly repudiated on 13.05.2010. This has been stated in the final repudiation letters dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012, and it has also been recorded that no address of any warehouse was given as is evident from the policy. It has also been recited in the repudiation that the Investigator's report also indicated that the declaration form received on 29.01.2010, filled in by the Insured and received by the Development Officer, had no value as the goods were already in the Punjab Conware Godown on 25.01.2010. The letter of repudiation also records that the Investigator's report has cited that material facts about the shipment of the goods had not been disclosed.

40. We have considered the submissions raised and we find this to be a very peculiar case where the surveyor tendered his final report on 25.02.2010 and the repudiation dated 13.05.2010, on the basis of the exiting policy and the terms and conditions thereof, had concluded that the claim was not admissible. The complainant subsequently made another attempt and the Insurance Company volunteered to carry out endorsements on 14.06.2011. We find this act of the Insurance Company to be very strange and unfamiliar in the background that the incident of fire had occurred on 31.01.2010. There was no such endorsement in the policy about the commencement of the journey. We fail to understand as to how and in what circumstances, the said endorsements were made by the Insurance Company and as to how the very same surveyor in his addendum report dated 05.09.2011 described it to be a "typographical error" as if something had been omitted to be mentioned in the original policy. This fact therefore also confirms our doubt about the declaration form dated 29.01.2010 stated to have been received by the Development Officer of the Insurance Company, and we find good reasons given in the letters of repudiation dated 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012 doubting the same. This is one of the rare cases where we find an endorsement being made almost 1 ½ years of the occurrence of the incident and the issuance of the policy. We find the act of the Insurance Company to carry out endorsements on 14.06.2011 after the survey report dated 25.02.2010 had categorically admitted the inadmissibility of the claim and the claim stood repudiated vide letter dated 13.05.2010.

41. We also find that, had an Investigator not been appointed by the Insurance Company doubting its own actions in the past, it would not have been possible for the Insurance Company to have repudiated the claims once again on 15.06.2012 and 29.06.2012. It is thus clear that some unwarranted acts and omissions of the officials of the Insurance Co. intervened after the complainant sought the reopening of the claim when the claim had already been repudiated on 13.05.2010. This entire exercise therefore speaks volume of the strong suspicious circumstances that led to the reopening of the claim and was followed by an unusual endorsement by the Insurance Company on 14.06.2011 on a presumed typographical mistake, so as to connect it with the unrequired declaration form.

42. Our doubts also get confirmed by the fact that we do not find any letter of communication by the complainant upon the issuance of the policy on 29.01.2010 objecting to the endorsement of a sea voyage clearly reciting the commencement of the journey from Nhava Sheva, Mumbai to Port Odessa, Ukraine. The original policy dated 29.01.2010 nowhere mentioned the commencement of the journey from Khopoli or any reference to the goods in transit being kept at Punjab Conware Warehouse at Dronagiri. The complainant admitted having not provided any reference or details of the inland transit journey from Khopoli to Dronagiri Punjab Conware Warehouse as per point no. 7 in the letter dated 12.12.2011 extracted above. This suppression or omission of any information about the transit journey therefore also confirms non-communication about the transit of the consignment before the coverage was sought on 29.01.2010. The mention of Khopoli in the declaration form dated 29.01.2010 remains unsubstantiated and there is no mention of the goods having arrived on 25.01.2010 at Punjab Conware. Thus any claim of the transit journey was never intimated or formed part of the policy issued on 29.01.2010. The subsequent effort after 1 ½ years to get an endorsement is therefore a somewhat cover-up for claiming a warehouse to warehouse risk coverage.

43. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the arguments raised by Mr. Jena on behalf of the complainant calling for fixing a liability on the Insurance Company in the said factual background. The entire review of the matter by the Insurance Company with the endorsement dated 14.06.2011 after 1½ years and addendum of the surveyor dated 05.09.2011 is engulfed in a heavy cloud of suspicion as discussed above after the claim had been repudiated on 13.05.2010. The sequence of the reopening, the tendering of an endorsement after 1 ½ years of the incident of loss and then an addendum report on 05.09.2011 are a clear facilitated and designed journey that was an attempt to suit the purposes of the complainant after the repudiation of the claim. We deprecate the acts and omissions of the Insurance Company in having allowed its officials to indulge in such transactions which clearly violates the doctrine of uberrimae fidei and reflects a clear trust deficit on the negotiations post repudiations dated 13.05.2010.

44. We may however indicate that the Insurance Company rightly reviewed its acts and omissions and reiterated its repudiation after carrying out an investigation that virtually prevented a dubious attempt to seek a manipulated indemnification.

45. Thus, on all counts as discussed above, the complainant cannot succeed. We cannot therefore put our seal to perpetuate a manipulation. The policy, therefore, does not in our opinion cover the risk at all and hence the repudiation is valid.

46. The Complaint cannot succeed as ultimately no deficiency in service in found against the Insurance Company. The Complaint is accordingly rejected.

47. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.