Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member and S.P. Lale, Member
KESHVLAL NARANJI - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Complaint Case No. CC/99/345
Decided on : 06-11-2011
Party in Person, for the Appellant; Ms. Apurva Pohnekar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company wrongfully repudiated the claim of the complainant, and the court directed the insurance company to pay the claimed amount along with interest and additional costs.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Breach of Warranty - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64-VB - Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Section 3 - The court found that the insurance company wrongfully repudiated the claim of the complainant in respect of expenses and damages incurred in repairing and trying to make seaworthy the barge. The court held that the insurance company's repudiation of the claim was wrongful as the complainant had complied with all the necessary steps and mandatory permissions. The court directed the insurance company to pay the complainant Rs. 5,69,413.30 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the entire amount and also pay Rs. 20,000 to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a registered firm, filed a complaint against the insurance company alleging deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating its claim in respect of expenses and damages incurred in repairing and trying to make seaworthy the barge. The barge was insured for a total amount of Rs. 19,50,000 and the complainant had paid the premium. The barge encountered various issues during its voyage, leading to its grounding and subsequent sale as scrap. The complainant claimed reimbursement of the expenses incurred for salvaging the barge, along with interest and additional costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company wrongfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. It held that the complainant had complied with all the necessary steps and mandatory permissions, and the insurance company's insistence on obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Mercantile Marine Department was an afterthought. The court directed the insurance company to pay the complainant the claimed amount along with interest and additional costs.
Issues: The court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the complainant firm proved that the insurance company wrongfully repudiated its claim in respect of expenses and damages incurred by the complainant in repairing and trying to make seaworthy while at Mangrol and as such, guilty of deficiency in service? The court found in the affirmative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company wrongfully repudiated the claim as the complainant had complied with all necessary steps and mandatory permissions, and the insurance company's insistence on obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Mercantile Marine Department was an afterthought. The court directed the insurance company to pay the complainant the claimed amount along with interest and additional costs.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 5,69,413.30 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the entire amount and also pay Rs. 20,000 to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
ORDER
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member - This complaint is filed by the Firm which is duly registered through its partners against the Insurance Company alleging deficiency in service on its part. According to complainant, they had taken two polices in respect of dump steel barge called Kena-1. One policy was in respect of total loss of barge and other policy was in respect of expenses and damage incurred by the complainant in repairs and trying to make seaworthy said barge. In respect of total loss of barge, complainant has filed separate complaint. According to complainant, the barge was constructed in 1997 and it was originally owned by Ardeshir B. Curostji and Sons Private Limited. Said owners sold the barge to Ghai Shipping and Transports Private Ltd. and from them the complainant had purchased the said barge on 4.12.1990. Initially it was called ABC.X, but complainant changed name of the barge to Kena-1. On 5.3.1991 they received approval for the change of the name from Mercantile Marine Department, Bombay district Government of India. The certificate of registration has been issued by the Registrar of Indian Shipping, Bombay on 28th June, 1991 in lieu of certificate dated 23rd April, 1977 on account of transfer of ownership. In May 1992 the barge was to be toured from Bombay to Rozi Port, Jamnagar, Gujarat State. It was being towed by vessel called Dhanprasad. Accordingly on 20th May, 1992 a valuation report in respect of said barge was prepared by Dave and Associate, registered marine surveyors. They valued the barge at about Rs. 19,50,000 and they opined that barge was in seaworthy condition. Said valuers also inspected Dhanprasad, the vessel which was to tow Kena-1 and found that Dhanprasad was also in seaworthy condition. The copy of agreement of towing the Kena-1 and copy of survey report prepared by Dave and Associates has been placed on record. Similarly, the complainant also made ultrasonic survey of the barge on 21.5.1992. Copy of said report is at Exhibit-D. On 22.5.1992 complainant got Kena-1 insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for its voyage from Bombay to Jamnagar under towing by Dhanprasad and insurance was in respect of hull and machinery for assured amount of Rs. 19,50,000. Complainant paid premium of Rs. 16,257 to the Insurance Company and policy was issued on 22.5.1992. On 22.5.1992 Dhanprasad along with Kena-1 left Bombay port for Jamnagar. During the voyage part of the machine called manifold broke down. Hence on 27.5.1992 said barge was taken to Veravalport. Complainant informed said fact to the Insurance Company. At Veraval machine was repaired and on 2.6.1992 after getting ship cleared, the barge proceeded to Rozi port, Jamnagar with the help of towing ship Dhanprasad. On way to Jamnagar, the connected shed and Hedni valve start of the engine broke down due to which the barge on 4.6.1992 along with the vessel were taken to Mangrol. After repairing the ship on 12.6.1992 the vessel along with the barge proceeded to Jamnagar. When the ship left Mangrol at Jamnagar, sea was calm, weather was peaceful. However, at midnight sea became violent and strong, wind started blowing from western direction. Due to this and purely due to natural causes, the connection between the vessel and barge broke down and the barge started getting dragged towards Mangrol. The Tandel and other crew of the vessel changed the direction of the ship and tried to catch the barge but because of bad wheather, they could not catch the barge. On 13.6.1992 the barge went adrift and landed on shore near Mangrol port but since there was shallow water, the vessel Dhanprasad could not reach the barge. The crew members from the barge jumped down for safety. Thereafter, the crew from Dhanprasad went to Mangrol port and tried to rescue the barge by tying the connecting ropes. This was not possible as there was major damage in the bottom par
