Back
2009(6) Supreme 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Appellant
versus
M/s Ozma Shipping Company & Another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6289 of 2001
Decided on : 25-08-2009
Facts of the Case :
Respondent.1, M/s Ozma Shipping Co. herein in the instant case was owner of a sailing vessel insured the same for a sum of Rs.21,50,000/-. Before issuing policy the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company thoroughly inspected the vessel and issued a valuation certificate. Surveyor after inspecting the vessel certified that the market value of the vessel was Rs.21,50,000/. Vessel sailed from Beypore to Kavarati loaded with Goods. The said vessel sank with the entire cargo. Respondent 1 lodged the insurance claim with appellant insurance company which agreed to settle the claim of respondent at Rs.15 lacs. On Complaint, National Commission held that on consideration of relevant factors valuation of the vessel was valued as Rs.21,50,000/ and insurance company was liable to pay the same.
Findings of the Court :
When the valuation of vessel had been carried out by Surveyor of insurance company who came to the conclusion that the value of the vessel would be Rs.21,50,000/- then the Insurance Company should not have hesitated to pay the amount which was legitimately due to the complainant particularly when there was no dispute that the entire vessel with cargo insured with the appellant sank while the vessel was sailing from Beypore to Kavarati. No interference was called for with impugned order of National Commission. Appeal was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—
1. This appeal is directed from the judgment dated 25th April, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No.79 of 1995.
2. The brief uncontroverted facts in nutshell are as under:-
Respondent No.1, M/s Ozma Shipping Co. is the owner of a sailing vessel. The same was insured on 14.12.1987 for a sum of Rs.21,50,000/-. A total premium of Rs.40,832.50 was paid for the period covering 14.12.1987 to 13.3.1988. The insurance was extended from 14.3.1988 to 13.6.1988 by paying a premium of Rs.30,383/-.
3. It may be pertinent to mention that before issuing the policy the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company thoroughly inspected the vessel and issued a valuation certificate. The Surveyor after inspecting the vessel certified that the market value of the vessel was Rs. 21,50,000/-. The Surveyor gave a very comprehensive report and took note of the fact that a major over-hauling of the engine and accessories and reconditioning and painting of the Hull had been carried out during 1987. It may be pertinent to mention that the Surveyor had considered all relevant factors in its report.
4. Sections 29 and 68 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 are relevant in connection with the present controversy involved in this case. It would be appropriate to set out both these sections:-
“29. Valued Policy:- (1) A policy may be either valued or unvalued.
(2) A valued policy is a policy which specifies the agreed value of the subject matter insured.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and in the absence of fraud, the value fixed by the policy is, as between the insurer and assured, conclusive of the insurable value of the subject intended to be insured, whether the loss be total or partial.
(4) Unless the policy otherwise provides, the value fixed by the policy is not conclusive for the purpose of determining whether there has been a constructive total loss.”
Section 68 reads as under:-
“Total Loss - Subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any express provision in the policy, where there is a total loss of the subject matter insured-
(1) if the policy be a valued policy, the measure of indemnity is the sum fixed by the policy;
(2) if the policy be an unvalued policy, the measure of indemnity is the insurable value of the subject- matter insured.”
5. It is clear from the section 29(3) that the value fixed by the policy between the insurer and the assured is conclusive of the insurance value.
6. The vessel sailed from Beypore to Kavarati loaded with goods at around 3 p.m. on 23.4.1988. The said vessel sank with the entire cargo.
7. Respondent no.1 lodged the insurance claim with the appellant insurance company on 6.5.1989. The appellant insurance company immediately deputed the Surveyor and carried out the spot survey. The Surveyor submitted the report advising carrying out proper investigation. The appellant insurance company agreed to settle the claim of respondent at Rs.15 lacs.
8. Respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short, the ‘National Commission’). The complainant prayed that the insurance company be directed to pay the entire insured amount of Rs.21,50,000/- with 18% rate of interest from the date of calamity i.e. from 23rd April, 1988 along with the compensation and costs.
9. The appellant insurance company submitted before the National Commission that the valuation report of the Surveyor of M/s Ozma Shipping Company was not correct because the value of the said vessel was not more than Rs.15 lacs, therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to an amount more than Rs.15 lacs.
10. It was stated by the appellant company that in the proposal form it was nowhere stated that it had remodeled and reconditioned the vessel by spending a sum of over Rs.5 lacs in the year 1989 and it was alleged for the first time vide order dated 28th February, 1990.
11. According to the appellant i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
