Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President;
Mr. K. Balakrishnan & Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Members
SMT. TRESIA LILLY—Complainant
versus
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY—Opp. Party
O.P. No. 13 of 1995—Decided on 21.11.1996
For the Complainant:Mr. S. Chandra Mohan Nair & Mr. K.P. Vijayan, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. N.B. Mahadevan Pillai, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Complainant insured fishing troller with opposite party - Troller sunk in sea - Accident intimated to opposite party Claim repudiated - Complaint Opposite party averred that claim repudiated for valid reasons and in good faith - Violation of warranty conditions of policy - No deficiency in service - Case involves complex question of law and facts and detailed oral and documentary evidence necessary to come to correct conclusion - Parties be relegated to Civil Court - No allegation that crew purposely made boat to sink - Three or four other fishing boats had also sunk No proper justification to repudiate claim - Nothing mentioned in report of surveyor or investigator to indicate that there was no sinking of boat or vessel- Deliberately made to sunk to put forward false claim - Repudiation of claim amount to deficiency in service - Boat insured for Rs. five lakhs - Complainant entitled to get compensation of Rs. five lakhs with interest.
Held: We find significantly there is no allegation that the crew purposely made the boat to sink. As a matter of fact it can be seen from the paper reports that along with this fishing boat 3 or 4 other fishing boats had also sunk and it has come out in the case of one boat Sherin the claim was settled by the opposite party at Rs. 3 lakhs and not being satisfied with the compensation awarded the party approached the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. In the circumstances we feel that there is no proper justification to repudiate the claim. In the report of the surveyor or investigator nothing has been mentioned to indicate that there is no sinking of the boat or the vessel was deliberately made to sink in order to put forward a false claim. We are therefore of the view that repudiation of the claim would amount to deficiency in service. (Para 17)
Coming to the amount of compensation we find that the boat is insured for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. Exbt.P.17 is the report made by the approved surveyor and according to him the market value of the fishing boat is Rs.7.5 lakhs. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs together with interest at 15% from 21-7-1993 the date of accident. (Para 18)
Result: Ordered accordingly.
Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President— This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,65,000/ for loss of vessel, which was insured with the Opposite Party.
2. Shortly stated allegations in the complaint are as follows:
Complainant was the owner of a fishing troller with Registration No. NDK. 871, issued by the Port Officer, Neendakara, Kollam. The troller was insured with the Opposite Party as per policy covering the period from 5.2.1993 to 4.5.1993 on payment of a premium of Rs.9,800/ and it was renewed on 4.5.1993 for a further period of 3 months on payment of a premium of Rs. 7,200/ and again for another period of 3 months by paying Rs. 7,200/ on 4.8.1993.
3. On 21.7.1993 while the troller was fishing in the deep sea, suddenly the sea became rough and several boats were capsized causing injury to several fishermen. Complainant's troller was one among them. Ext. P1 is the Press report relating to the accident to the vessels. After sinking of the vessel the crew were rescued and admitted to the District Hospital, Kollam. The discharge certificate issued is Ext. P 2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Police Station, Ochira regarding the incident on 22.7.1993 and the police registered a case with Crime No. C2/328/PTN/93 regarding sinking of the troller. Ext. P3 is the receipt issued by the police on 3.8.1993 regarding registration of case. The licence was surrendered to the Port Officer, Kollam, on 6.9.1993. The surrender certificate is Ext. P4. The Port Officer also issued a weather certificate of condition prevailing at Neendakara on 21.7.1993, which is evidenced by Ext. P5. The accident was duly intimated to the Opposite Party and as per direction of the Opposite Party complainant submitted a claim petition before the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party con ducted an enquiry. Finally the Opposite Party issued a registered letter Ext. P6 dated 10.10.1994 repudiating the claim stating that the complain ant has not lost the trolly and the crew was not competent to operate the troller. The complain ant alleged that the reasons stated by the Opposite Party for repudiating the claim are not valid or genuine on these allegations the complaint was filed.
4. A version was filed by the Opposite Party denying the allegations and contending that the claim was repudiated for valid reasons and in good faith. It was further averred, that detailed survey and investigation through private agencies were conducted and the survey report and investigation report were considered in detail by the Opposite Party and it is on the basis of these materials the claim was repudiated. In the cir cumstances there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. It is further averred that on receipt of the claim intimation, the Opposite Party deputed a competent Marine and Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor M/s. Captain Krishnan & Company to survey and assess the loss. They collected all the relevant data pertain ing to the alleged sinking of the vessel and another private investigator M/s. Scouts, Vyttila, Cochin was also deputed and it is based on the survey reports and investigation report of the Surveyors the claim was repudiated. It was further averred that an Express Warranty contained in the policy is that the vessel should comply with all local regulations and laws regarding registration of fishing licence, but the complainant has not complied with the warranty contained in the policy. As per the Kerala State Ports and Harbour Craft Rules, 1970, the Serang and Driver should possess certificate of competency. The vessel was registered at Neendakara on 11.11.1992 and the registration was valid till 31.8.1993. Apart from the aforesaid grounds there are also other grounds to show that the repudiation is valid. It is further averred that the cause and circumstances leading to the alleged mishap as contained in the statements of crew members and others are neither consis
