Engaging in illegal activities, such as fishing without a required licence, can relieve an insurance company from its liability under the policy, based on the concept of breach of warranty.

Headnote:
Insurance - Marine Hull and Machinery Policy - Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - Fishing Licence - Section 35(iii) - Non-standard claim - Illegal activity - Breach of warranty
Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company for repudiating the claim after the complainant's boat sank. The insurance company contended that the complainant did not possess the requisite fishing licence for the boat and hence was not entitled to the claim amount.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant did not possess a fishing licence for the boat and that the insurance company was relieved from its obligation under the policy due to the illegal activity of fishing without a licence. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.
Issues: 1. Possession of fishing licence by the complainant. 2. Effect of lack of fishing licence on the insurance company's liability. 3. Entitlement of the complainant to the claimed amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's lack of a fishing licence relieved the insurance company from its obligation under the policy. The court also emphasized the concept of breach of warranty and the implications of engaging in illegal activities on insurance claims.
Final Decision: The consumer complaint was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The complainant was not entitled to the claimed amount.

ORDER

Mr. P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member - Consumer complaint was filed with the intention that a policy called 'Marine Hull and Machinery Policy bearing no.121001/22/7/01/0000002 in respect of shipping boat known as 'Devachi Jejuri'. On 05/10/2007, said boat sailed for fishing and when it was returning, it was noticed that water had entered into the room of the engine. On investigation, the leader of the board found that a plank of the board had become loose, due to stroke of some hard and blunt substance. As a result, the flow of water could not be stopped and the boat sank and got drowned in the sea. A claim was lodged by the complainant with the opponent insurance company. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. The surveyor filed his report. As per the surveyor, loss of vessel was due to falling of the plank due to normal and seasonal weather and it was not under the terms of the policy. The surveyor also reported that for fishing in marine, licence is necessary, but no such licence was produced before the surveyor. After receiving the report of the surveyor, the opponent repudiated the claim of the complainant. This complaint is, therefore, filed by the complainant.

2. The complaint was resisted by the opponent by filing written version. Admitting the insurance, opponent raised an objection that there was no fishing licence for the said boat and hence insurance company is not liable to pay any amount. It was also contended that loss of the vessel was not because of peril covered under the policy and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complaint was dismissed by this Commission and hence matter went to the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.330/14. The Hon'ble National Commission remanded the matter to this State Commission for passing a fresh order after recording its finding on the question as to whether the complainant possessed the requisite fishing licence in respect of boat in question on 05/10/2007 or not If not whether on account of want of the said licence, the insurance company stood relieved from its obligation under the policy or not.

4. In view of the above discussion and order of the Hon'ble National Commission, following points arise for our consideration and our findings on them are noted as below:-

	Points Findings	Findings
1.	Whether the complainant had a fishing licence in respect of boat in question on 05/10/2007?	No
2.	Whether on account of want of the fishing licence, the opponent insurance company stood relieved from its obligation under the policy or not.	Yes
3.	Whether the complaint is entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint?	No
4.	What order?	As per final order.

POINT NO.1 :-

5. The complainant, even after remand, has not filed any fishing licence. However, he has filed one registration certificate at page no.88. However, that is not fishing licence. It is only registration of the said vessel issued by the Registering Authority, Bandar Adhikari, Mora, Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai. Thus, it is clear that no fishing licence is filed by the complainant even the matter was remanded by the Hon'ble National Commission. Thus, it is clear that there was fishing licence with the complainant in respect of the boat in question on 05/10/2007, the day of incident. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in negative.

POINT NO.2 :-

6. The learned advocate for the opponent argued that as the complainant was not having fishing licence of the boat on the relevant date, the activity of fishing was illegal and the opponent is thereby relieved to pay the amount under policy. The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that the claim of the complainant be allowed on Non-standard basis. He relief on the authority reported in (2006) 3 CPJ 284 (NC), S. Kamala v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Engaging in illegal activities, such as fishing without a required licence, can relieve an insurance company from its liability under the policy, based on the concept of breach of warranty.

Cases Referred (1)

Login now and unlock premium legal research