SALE OF GOODS ACT

1930
CASELETS FROM INDIA
 The petitioner obtained a Marine Transit Insurance Policy from the
respondent company. The stated policy covered goods to the extent of
Rs 2 crore against all risk of transit. Complainant sent 1009 TV Sets from
Dehradun to East India Technology Pvt. Ltd. in Tamil Nadu. Further, the
goods were to be supplied to the Government of Tamil Nadu, which on
inspection rejected the said TV sets. Consequently, East India
Technology Pvt. Ltd. transported the goods back to the complainant and
on the way, the goods got damaged when the truck in which they were
being carried met with an accident.
 Thus in view of the stated, a claim was lodged for reimbursement in
terms of the insurance policy.
 On being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the
complainant approached the District Forum wherein the consumer
complaint was allowed, the insured approached he concerned
State Commission by way of an appeal. State Commission allowed
the appeal and consequently dismissed the said consumer
complaint on not having any insurable interest in the goods.
 Further, the complainant reached before this Commission. The
question that was raised was:
 “Whether  the petitioner had any insurable interest in the goods, at
the time when they were damaged while being transported from
Tamil Nadu to Dehradun?”
 complainant submitted that despite invoice raised in favour of
East India Technology Pvt. Ltd., the ownership of the goods
continued to vest with the complainant since the price of the
goods was to be paid by the East India Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
within 60 days of inspection of the goods by ELCOT which is
stated to be an agency of Government of Tamil Nadu and
therefore, the complainant continued to have insurable
interest in the goods by the time when they were damaged
on account of road accident.
 If the goods in deliverable state are delivered by the seller to the
purchaser, the property in the goods passes from the seller to the
purchaser unless they have contracted otherwise.”
 Commission stated that it would be difficult to say that the
complainant continued to be the owner of the goods in question
even after having sold and delivered the goods to East India
Technology (P) Ltd. The commission while reaching the conclusion
added that considering that the complainant had not only sold the
goods but had also delivered the same to East India Technology
(P) Ltd. without reserving any right for the disposal of goods, it
cannot be said to have retained insurable interest in the said goods
in term of Section 7 of the Indian Maritime Insurance Act, 1963.