IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Declaration made by Opponent no.1 that insurance policy issued by Opponent no.1 is void-ab-initio is illegal.
(2) Only the insurance policy given by Opponent no.1 to complainant will come into existence for the period for which it was given and thereafter, the Complainant will be entitled to get claim in respect of that vessel under that policy from Opponent no.1.

ORDER

D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member.—Complainant has filed this complaint for getting insurance claim from opponent along with other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Opponent no.1 through its Agent, opponent no.2 had taken the tanker vessel owned by complainant named – MT Crystal for all risks under Marine Hull Insurance policy. Complainant was required to pay total premium of Rs.6,72,528/- to opponents and the same was payable in quarterly instalment of Rs.1,68,132/-. Accordingly on 06/11/2006 complainant had paid first instalment of amount of premium by cheque to opponent and thereafter insurance policy had come into effect on 09/11/2006. In that respect the proposal form was given by complainant to opponent no.1 on 23/11/2006. While giving proposal form general particulars were required to be submitted by complainant. As per this column, information regarding accidents to the vessels owned by complainant during last three years was required to be mentioned. However, as no accident had taken place with any of the vessels of complainant, complainant submitted that, ‘the column is not applicable to complainant’ and left other columns blank. Relied to that information opponent no.2 being broker in providing insurance policies to complainant was fully aware of this fact and no objection has been raised by opponents in respect of that information supplied by complainant. On submission of proposal form opponent no.2 had sent policy bearing no.1101062511000011 to the complainant in respect of that vessel. The period of policy was from 08/11/2006 to 07/11/2007. The total sum assured was Rs.14,78,75,000/-. After getting this insurance policy also complainant continued to deposit the quarterly instalment of premium of opponent no.1. The final instalment was paid in the month of August, 2007 as per schedule of payment given by opponent no.1 to complainant. On 05/09/2007 when the vessel of complainant was enroute to Kandla at about 190 NM off the coast of Okha the bearing of the main engine of the vessel was damaged and because of which the lube oil pressure had been dropped. In order to reduce any further damage to the engine complainant had decided to tow the vessel to the nearest port to get the engine repaired. Complainant informed this fact to opponent no.2 by e-mail on 06/09/2007. AI Mubarak Overseas was appointed to tow the vessel and they had claimed towing charges of USD 2,52,343.75 for the same. On 21/09/2007 opponent no.1 requested to send the details of the claim preferred on other vessels of the complainant during last five years. However, as no claims were preferred for last five years before taking insurance policy no such details were sent to opponent no.1. However, opponent no.1 vide their e-mail dated 26/09/2007 informed complainant that they had raised two claims in respect of MT Twinkle, a sister vessel of complainant and submitted that thereby complainant has committed breach of warranty no.8 which is attached to the policy and thereby shown their inability to give the claim to complainant. It is the contention of complainant that warranties which are attached with the insurance policy were not supplied to the complainant along with insurance policy and warranties were inserted subsequently unilaterally by opponent no.1 and hence, these warranties are not binding on complainant. It is also the contention of complainant that no accident had taken place in respect of sister vessel of complainant and no claim was made by complainant in respect of those vessels five years of taking the policies from the opponentno.1. It is their submission that whatever claims complainant had taken in respect of those vessels cannot be considered as claims for accident. Finally by giving letter dated 23/10/2007 opponent no.1 had repudiated the claim of complainant and submitted that the policy issued in