Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy,
President; Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao, Member: Smt. J. Ananda Laxmi, Member
N. RAVINDRANATHA REDDY—Complainant
versus
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opposite Party
C.D. Case No. 53 of 1990—Decided on 28.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. S. Hanumaiah, Advocate.
The value of the fish in a marine insurance policy is determined by the value mentioned in the policy, and not by the market value prevailing on the date of the policy.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE POLICY - MARINE CARGO POLICY - CLAIM SETTLEMENT - VALUATION OF FISH - SALVAGE - NOTICE TO CARRIERS - INTEREST ON CLAIM AMOUNT - CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL - INTERPRETATION OF POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS - CONSUMER RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES - INSURANCE COMPANY'S OBLIGATIONS - DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN SETTLEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an agriculturist and pisciculturist, took out a marine insurance policy from the opposite party for the transportation of two lorry loads of fish from Kota Village to Calcutta City. One of the lorries met with an accident, and the fish was completely decomposed. The complainant claimed the insured value of the fish from the insurance company, but the company offered a disproportionately low settlement amount. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking payment of the insured value, damages for loss and injury, and interest on the claim amount.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complainant was entitled to the insured value of the fish as mentioned in the policy, as the policy was a marine insurance policy and not a market value policy. The Commission also held that there was no proof of any salvage being sold for Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the insurance company. The Commission further held that the insurance company was not entitled to deduct any sum from the amount payable to the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to give notice to the carriers, as the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant to enable the same to be reimbursed from the carrier.
Issues: 1. Whether the value of the fish must be taken to be as mentioned in the Insurance Policy or whether the opposite party is justified in valuing the fish at Rs. 17/- per Kgs. as arrived at by them according to fisheries department? 2. Whether there is any salvage which was sold for Rs. 20,000/-? 3. Whether the opposite party was entitled to deduct any sum from the amount payable to the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to give notice to the carriers thereby preserve the claim of the opposite party?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The value of the fish must be taken as mentioned in the Insurance Policy as it was a marine insurance policy and not a market value policy. 2. There was no proof of any salvage being sold for Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the insurance company. 3. The insurance company was not entitled to deduct any sum from the amount payable to the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to give notice to the carriers, as the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant to enable the same to be reimbursed from the carrier.
Final Decision: The State Commission directed the insurance company to pay the complainant the insured value of the fish with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of submission of the claim till payment.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—Case Under Sections 13, 14,17 and 18 of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds filed therewith the State Commission will be pleased to (a) direct the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousands only) being the insured value of the consignment of fish loaded in lorry No. AEN 1139 covered by Marine (Cargo) Policy No. 051304/ 21/26/06000/89, dated 28-7-1989 issued by the opposite party with interest @ 12% thereon from the date of the accident till realisation, (b) award damages of Rs. 14,000/- by way of compensation for the loss and injury caused to the complainant by the negligence of the opposite party in setting the claim, (c) grant costs of the complaint, (d) and grant such other and further reliefs which the State Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. This case coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of ground filed therein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Mr. S. Hanumaiah, Advocate for the respondent-opposite party.
3. The court made the following Order:
Oral order as per Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President on behalf of the bench.
The complainant who is an agriculturist and Pisciculturist of Kota Village, Nellore District took out a marine insurance policy from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 689/- as premium on 28-7-1989 for a total sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- i.e. being the value of two lorry loads of fish one in lorry AEN 1177 and the other AEN 1139 valued at Rs. 1,35,000/ - and 1,40,000/- respectively for transportation from Kota Village to Calcutta City. According to the complainant, the authorised agent of the opposite party was present at the time of weighing and loading of the fish in the said lorries on 28-7-1989. One of the lorries AEN 1139 which was loaded with 4500/- Kgs. of fish valued at Rs. 1,40,000/- met with an accident in the early hours of 31-7-1989 near Golamthara Police Station, Orissa State. The driver could contact the complainant on the afternoon of 31-7-1989. There upon the complainant immediately went to the branch office of the opposite party at Nellore and sought necessary advise from the branch manager who gave a letter to the regional office at Visakhapatnam. The regional office deputed a surveyor and both of them reached the accident place on 2-8-1989 by night, due to Godavari floods during that time and consequent breaches on the road. Although the driver contacted the Station House Officer of Golamthara Police Station at the earliest possible time, nothing could be done to save the fish from damage. By the time the complainant and Surveyor reached the spot of the accident on 2-8-1989 all the fish in the baskets fell down and as ice cubes which were put in the polythene baskets alongwith fish melted away, the fish was completely decomposed and started emitting pungent bad smell and also caused public nuisance. Therefore, the decomposed fish was disposed of to the local manure manufacturers at free of cost in the interests of public health. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- being the value of the fish from the opposite party. The surveyor submitted a report on 14-8-1989 stating that tere was total loss, but, the opposite party instead of paying the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- seems to have appointed an investigator and sent a disproportionate claim voucher on 2-1-1990 for a sum of Rs. 14,817.00 in settlement of claim of the complainant. But did not communicate the basis on the reasons for arriving at the sum of Rs. 14,817.00 and the same is arbitrary. Thereupon the complainant sent a registered notice through lawyer on 20-1-1990 calling upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. A reply was sent to the above said registered notice by the opposite party on 14-6-1990 i.e. after a period of five months stating
