HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed a transport contractor to pay over Rs 4.15 lakh to a private insurance firm after finding it deficient in service over a damaged industrial consignment.
A manufacturing company had insured its goods under a marine cargo policy issued by a government-owned insurance firm. The manufacturer engaged a transport contractor to move 300 fibre sheets from Pune to Gujarat in July 2023. During transit, the vehicle carrying the consignment met with an accident, causing extensive damage to the goods.
The insurer, after assessing the loss through an appointed surveyor, settled the claim for Rs 4,15,316 in favour of the manufacturer.
Following a letter of subrogation, the insurance company filed a complaint before the consumer forum seeking reimbursement from the transport contractor.
The transport contractor, in its defence, denied liability, stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was hired from a third party.
After examining the evidence, the commission held that the contractor had not informed the consignor about hiring third-party vehicles and had withheld relevant information. The forum, however, declined to grant additional compensation or interest.
The commission directed the contractor to pay Rs 4.15 lakh to the insurer within 45 days. In case of default, the amount will attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint until realisation.
Auto driver gets Rs 60,000 compensation for illegal vehicle seizure
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, has ruled in favour of an auto-rickshaw driver, Syed Yahiya Hussaini (39) of Talab Katta, in a case against Sunaiyana Finance & Credit Corporation for illegally seizing his vehicle.
On August 30, 2024, two men allegedly sent by the firm forcibly seized his vehicle at Uppal without any prior notice.
When Hussaini approached the company to clear his pending balance, they refused to release the vehicle and demanded additional charges. He also alleged that the firm was operating without a Reserve Bank of India licence and was making borrowers sign blank papers. The company denied the allegations, claiming he defaulted on payments and that the seizure followed due procedure. However, the commission found that the firm had issued no seizure notice.
