Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Jagdish Prabhudesai and Vidhya Gurav, Members
LKAR GLOBAL MERCHANT THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, RAJ LOTLIKAR - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE - Respondent
Complaint No. 62 of 2016
Decided on : 06-04-2018
V.A. Lawande, Adv., E. Afonso, Adv.
The court established that the Opposite Party's unjustified rejection of the claim amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
deficiency in service - Marine Insurance Claim - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant alleged that the barge M.V. Kaustubh, insured under a Marine Hull Insurance Policy, was damaged due to a collision and grounding. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim, alleging non-renewal of the insurance policy and dilapidated condition of the vessel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Opposite Party failed to prove the dilapidated condition of the vessel and unjustifiably rejected the claim. The court held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service and directed them to pay the claim amount with interest.
Issues: The main issues were the sea-worthiness of the vessel, non-renewal of the insurance policy, and the alleged dilapidated condition of the vessel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Opposite Party's acts of commission and omission amounted to deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the claim amount with interest.
ORDER
Jagdish Prabhudesai, Member - By this Order, we shall dispose off the present Complaint dated 6.10.2016 filed by the Complainant herein against the Opposite Party herein inter alia alleging certain 'deficiency in service', under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
I The Complainant in his complaint has alleged that he runs the proprietorship firm through its proprietor Mr. Raj Lotlikar and that he is the owner of barge M. V. Kaustubh bearing Regn. No. MRH-500 registered with Captain of Ports - Mormugao, Goa on 22/041975, which was built by M/s Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Sirigao, Goa, hereinafter referred to as the "said vessel".
The case of the Complainant is that the said vessel was sea worthy, properly manned and duly insured with the Opposite Party under the Marine Hull Insurance Policy No. 131700/22/2012/87 under ITC Hulls 01/10/83 with 3/4ths collision liability amended to 4/4th collision liability and the insurance premium was paid regularly.
The policy was active at the time of accident. II It is alleged that the said vessel was anchored and awaiting dry dock for annual survey at Adpai, Dhurbat, Near ferry Point, with the crew on board i.e. one oilman, 2 sailors and the master, where on the night of 16th February 2012 i.e. about 23.30 hours, the accident occurred whereby an unknown barge collided the said vessel and the said vessel due to the impact of the collision shifted into the mangroves and grounded. The crew members on board who were resting after their dinner on hearing the noise of the collision, rushed out to see what happened and they found that the said vessel was hit by an unknown barge which had already left after the collision and that the said vessel due to the impact of collision was shifted into the mangroves and was grounded. The unknown barge which collided with the said vessel could not be identified due to darkness.
The crew members checked the engine room and other tanks and saw that the water had entered into the engine room and it was getting flooded at rapid pace.
The crew members took steps to control the inflow of water in the engine room by starting the water pump in the deck as the engine room pumps were half submerged in water due to flooding, but however the water could not be controlled. The master of the said vessel immediately contacted the owner of the said vessel and requested to send additional pumps which the owner rushed and supplied by 00.30 hours, but the inflow of the water in the engine room could not be still controlled due to high tide and the pumps could not control the rise of water in the engine room. The engine room was totally flooded and the said vessel was partially sunk.
III The Complainant alleged that immediately the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party by a letter dated 17/02/2012 about the accident and requested the Opposite Party to immediately appoint their Surveyor and register the claim under the policy. The Captain of Ports was also informed about the accident.
An enquiry of the accident was also instituted by the Captain of Ports and a casualty report was submitted by the owners on 17/2/2012. Thereafter the master and the crew were interrogated by the Captain of Port, Surveyor of the Opposite Party and a sworn Affidavit was submitted at the time of interrogation. That first Surveyor, Stewart Surveyors & Assayers Pvt. Ltd., who were appointed by the Opposite Party carried out the preliminary inspection of the said vessel on 17.2.2012 and the Complainant was asked to immediately take action to secure the said vessel and to refloat it and keep them informed on day to day basis regarding the progress of work and also asked the Complainant to submit all the documents of the said vessel alongwith the actions taken.
IV The Complainant further alleged that the Complainant was informed by the Captain of Ports to immediately salvage the said vessel and that as the quotations were aside by the first surveyor
