JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:-Both these complaints are filed by the same complainant against the New India Assurance Company alleging deficiencies while rendering the service of insurance. Since the complainant and the opposite party are the same and the subject matter is common, we pass this common order. The complainant alleged that he is an assignee of 2 Insurance Policies mentioned in those complaints issued in favour of Ajanta Paper and General Products Ltd., Bombay. The complainant alleged that his consignees M/s. Ajanta Paper and General Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred as consignees) had placed orders on Celpaco incorporated at France and accordingly, the goods were despatched by "S. Irish Mapel" from Port Antwerp to Bombay under Bill of Loading No. 78 and Bill of Loading No. 103 dated 11-2-1984. The consignee by their letter dated 27-2-1984 had requested the opposite party to issue Insurance Policies covering 244 bales of value of Rs. 5,87,000/- and 170 bales for value of 44,000 and accordingly the opposite party issued 2 Insurance Policies mentioned in 2 complaints. The said policies were to cover the consignments against all risks from Port Antwerp to Kalyan, viz. Bombay and Bombay respectively. It is the allegations of the complainant in both complaints that the vessal "S.S. Irish Mapel" was diverted to Muscat due to strike in major ports in India. The opposite party acknowledged that letter and informed the consignee to see that both the consignments are reshipped from Muscat to Bombay within 60 days time limit from the date of the same were despatched at Muscat. The consignee by their letter dated 21-5-1984 informed the opposite parties that they were arranging to bring the cargo from Muscat in order to avoid further delay, pilferage and damage and also were trying to minimise financial losses and pointing out that the additional expenses if any be borne by the opposite parties. The consingnee also requested the opposite parties to endorse the Insurance certificate for covering the risk for forced transmission from Muscat to Bombay. The opposite party however, reiterated that the risk under the policies will cease on expiry of 60 days. It is further stated that the expenses of extra frieght, warehousing etc. will not be borne by them. The consingnee also requested the opposite parties to endorse the Insurance certificate for covering the risk for forced transmission from Muscat to Bombay. The opposite party however, reiterated that the risk under the policies will cease on expiry of 60 days. It is further stated that the expenses of extra frieght, warehousing etc. will not be borne by them. The complainant further alleged that the consignee vide their letter dated 8-6-1984 informed the complainant that the aforesaid 2 consignments were loaded from "M. V. Michel C" and the same were expected shortly at Bombay Port and further pointed out that the consignees have taken all the possible steps to maintain the losses and to protect the Cargo. The complainant further alleged that certain bales of goods under transhipment were short landed and obtained the shortlanding certificates issued by the Bombay Port Trust docks of Bombay. The shortages were also informed to the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that due to the deficiencies in the service of the Insurance Company the complainant suffered the loss as the validity of certificate was not extended. 2. The issue falls for our consideration is whether by not extending the insurance cover during retranshipment and not repudiating the insurance claim on flimsy grounds whether it consitutes deficiencies in the service? 3. We have heard Shri Jaiswal, advocate for the complainant and Shri Motiwala, advocate for the New India Assurance Company. The facts as regards the grant of Marine Insurance Policy to the complainant and the general strike in major ports in India and the travel of the ships to Muscat are not in dispute. Similarly, the letter dated 12-4-1984 from the complainant to extend the risk and the receipt of that letter by the opposite party is also not in dispute. Therefore, we have only to find out whether in view of the facts whether refusal on the part of the Insurance Company to extend the cover has caused loss to the complainant. Similarly, the letter dated 12-4-1984 from the complainant to extend the risk and the receipt of that letter by the opposite party is also not in dispute. Therefore, we have only to find out whether in view of the facts whether refusal on the part of the Insurance Company to extend the cover has caused loss to the complainant. While opposing the complainants claim the opposite party mainly relied on Clause No. 9 an 9.2 of the Cargo Class A. It reads as under : A : (9) If owing to circumstances beyond the control of the assured either the contract of carriage is terminated at a port or place other than the destination named therein or the transit is terminated befor delivery of the goods as provided for in Clause 8 above, then the insurance shall also terminate unless prompt notice is given to the underwriters and continuation of cover is requested when the insurance shall remain in force, subject to an additional premium if required by the underwriters, either. (9.1) Until the goods are sold and delivered at such port or place, or, unless otherwise specially agreed, until the expiry of 60 days after arrival of the goods here by insured at such port or place, whichever shall first occur. (9.2) If the goods are forwarded within the said period of 60 days (if any) agreed extension thereof to the destination named herein or to any other destination, until terminated in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8 above. In the instant case, the consignments could not be landed in ports in India due to general strike and, therefore, the ships were required to be diverted to Muscat. In compliance with the aforesaid condition the complainant had promptly informed on 12-4-1984 the Insurance Company to extend the cover risk and also agreed to pay necessary charges for the same vide their letter dated 2-6-1984 at Ex. C. By another letter dated 8-6-1984 the complainants also informed that these two consignments were being loaded per "M.V. Michel" and also informed that all possible steps to minimise the loss by protecting the cargo were being taken . Thus, there is a compliance of the aforesaid Rule 9 and 9.2 from the complainants side. It was, therefore, incumbant on the Insurance Company to extend the cover under Clause 9.2 mentioned above. Thus, there is a compliance of the aforesaid Rule 9 and 9.2 from the complainants side. It was, therefore, incumbant on the Insurance Company to extend the cover under Clause 9.2 mentioned above. But unfortunately, the opposite party failed to extend the insurance cover during retranshipment. The negligence lies in the service of the Insurance Company in not accepting the necessary charges for the extension of the time when it was needed to protect the complainant from the likely clause of consignments. The reasons to divert the cargo to Muscat was beyond the control of complainant, and, therefore, under the circumstances it was the duty of the Insurance Company to extend the period of risk. The purpose to extend the cover for a period of 60 days on payment of charges has been provided under the policy to meet the contingencies when the circumstances are beyond the control of the insured to terminate the goods at a designated port. In order to cover such contingency Class 12 is provided in the policy which reads as under : "whether as a result of the operation of risk covered by this insurance, the insured transit is terminated at a port or place other than that to which subject matter is covered under this insurance, the underwriters will reimburse the assured for any extra charges properly and reasonably incurred in unloading, storing, and forwarding the subject matter to the destination to which it is insured hereunder. 4. The aforesaid Clause 12 is also provided to meet the expenses of the insured by the underwriters under such circumstances. Therefore, this was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to extend the cover note under the same policy to protect the likely loss to the two consignments in question. We have found that the complainant have done everything promptly within their reach viz. a) Inform the Insurance Company to extend the cover due to general strike and the discharge of cargo at Muscat vide letter dated 12-4-1984; b) Offered to pay extra payment vide letter dated 2-6-1984; c) Try to minimise the expenses and losses in retranshipments of cargo; d) Promptly obtain certificates from S.P.I. for shortlanding and survey reports; e) File appeals before the higher authorities including General Managers/Chairman who promised to look into the matter. 5. 5. As against the aforesaid prompt steps taken by the complainants the opposite party was negligent for a period of five years to repudiate the claims of the complainant in respect of these two consignments. The delay of five years to repudiate the claim is obviously serious deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The deficiency is further compounded by the negligence on the part of the opposite party to extend the cover under Clause No. 9 and 9.2 despite the request from the complainant and offer to make the extra payments of premium for the extended period. The complainant could do nothing under the circumstances except making the request to the Insurance Company to invoke the provisions of extending the insurance cover not in exceptional circumstances. In our view, therefore, the deficiency in the service of the opposite party is apparent from the record. It is crystal clear that the deficiencies are result of negligence in the service of the opposite party in not considering the prompt and legitimate request of the complainant to extend the cover. 6. Another contention raised by the Insurance Company about the limitation in filing the two complaints is concerned, we find that the two complaints are filed on 23-7-1992 within a period of three years from repudiation. Thus, this submission also does not have any force. 7. Both the policies are assigned to the complainant by endorsing under section 52 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963. Section 52 reads as under : a) A Marine Policy may be transferred by assigning unless it contains terms expressly prohibiting assignees. It may be assigned either before or after the loss. b) Whether a Marine Policy has been assigned so as to pass the financial interest in such policy, the assignee of the policy is entitled to sue there on in his own name and the defendant is entitled to make any defects arising out of the contract which he was having entitled to make it if the suit has been brought in the name of the person by or on behalf of whom the policy was effected. c) The Marine Policy may be assigned by endorsement thereon by another expectamar. 8. In view of the provisions of assigning of policy the complainant has right to file its complaint claiming the losses arising out of the two Insurance Policies in question. 9. c) The Marine Policy may be assigned by endorsement thereon by another expectamar. 8. In view of the provisions of assigning of policy the complainant has right to file its complaint claiming the losses arising out of the two Insurance Policies in question. 9. The complainant claimed the loss of Rs. 5,04,841.23 ps. in Complaint No. 402 of 1994 and Rs. 9,99,500/- in another Complaint No. 114 of 1994. The complainants having fully proved their allegations and also proved the losses mentioned above. The losses suffered by the complainant are arising as a result of negligence in the service of the opposite party in not providing the insurance cover to the consignments although it was provided. The Insurance Company should have after accepting the extra premium from the complainant extended the cover to the consignments. Failure on the part of the Insurance Company to provide the extension of the policies as per the conditions of policy has caused the aforesaid loss to the complainant. The complainant as assignee is entitled to receive the benefits arising from the insurance claims in question. We are, therefore, of the view that both the complaints are required to be allowed. Under these circumstances, the New India Assurance Comapny is liable to settle the complainants claims as under : ORDER 10. Both the complaints are allowed. In Complaint No. 402 of 1994, the New India Assurance Company shall settle the complainants claim for a sum of Rs. 5,04,841.23 and in Complaint No. 414 of 1994 settle the complainants claim for Rs. 9,99,500/-. Both the claims be granted to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The complainant be granted cost of Rs. 500/- in each complaint. Complaints allowed. *****