NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Gurukrupa Expo Trade – Complainant
versus
New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.3 of 2017
Decided on 6.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12(1)(a) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(a)] – Services – Insurance – Marine Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – When Justified – Admission of violation of warranty - The Insured has stated that although the vessel of the Insured was started voyage from Sharjah (U.A.E.) for Bosaso (Somalia), but the incident took place at 10 Nautical miles north of Sharjah Creek – Thus, At the time of incident, there was no violation of the Circular dated 30.03.2010. A perusal of the map shows that Salalah is the port in Oman. Somalia is in south of Salalah, Oman. The surveyor recorded statements of the skipper and the crew persons, who informed that the vessel had made two voyages from U.A.E. to Somalia before the incident. The complainant admitted that his vessel remained in Arabian countries from 04.01.2012 till the date of incident. As such violation of warrantee is admitted and proved. Repudiation letter does not suffer from any illegality – On facts, complaint is dismissed. [Paras 3 to 9].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Shridhar Y. Chitale, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Shri Gurukrupa Expo Trade (the Insured) has filed above complaint for setting aside the letter dated 27.03.2014, repudiating its insurance claim and for directing New India Assurance Company Limited (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs.32500000/-, with interest @18% per annum from 21.08.2012 till the date of payment, as the insurance claim; (ii) Rs.1000000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Rs.500000/-, as actual loss; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are as follows:—
(a) Shri Gurukrupa Expo Trade (the Insured) was a registered partnership firm and engaged in the business of sailing mechanized vessel named as “M.S.V. Nar Narayan” Registration No. M.N.V. 2163 for commercial purpose. The Insured obtained a Certificate of Inspection dated 05.10.2011 of the vessel from Mercantile Marine Department, Government of India, Kandla, which was valid up to 31.05.2012. New India Assurance Company Limited (the insurer) was a public insurance company and engaged in the business of providing insurance services to the general public. The Insured obtained “Hull Machinery Insurance Policy-Sailing Vessel” No. 21160222-10100000005, for the period of 25.02.2012 to 24.02.2013, for coverage of Rs.325/- lacs, of the said vessel, which was a renewal policy as initial policy was obtained on 20.02.2009. At that time, the Insurer obtained a report of fitness from J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., a licenced insurance surveyor, dated 20.02.2009.
(b) The Insured entered into a Launch Hiring Agreement dated 02.08.2012 with M/s. Nour Mowafaq General Trading, L.L.C. for carrying out the full capacity of general cargo from Sharjah (U.A.E.) to Bosaso (Somalia). For voyage of the aforesaid deal, the vessel of the Insured reached Sharjah (U.A.E.) on 28.07.2012. Loading of the cargo in the vessel was started on 01.08.2012 and completed on 14.08.2012. The vessel departed for its onward journey to the port of Bosaso (Somalia) on 16.08.2012 at 10:00 hours of Sharjah time. At about 13:00 hours of Sharjah time, when the vessel was about 10 Nautical miles North of Sharjah Creek, the crew members of the vessel sensed smoke in the cargo compartment of the vessel and they immediately alerted the Captain, who switched off the engines of the vessel. The crew members also informed the Captain that an explosion had occurred in the cargo stowage area and the wooden boundary structure. Noticing the gravity of the situation, the Captain instructed all the crew members of the vessel to wear their life jackets, launch the life raft and abandon the vessel, which they did. On 16.08.2012 at about 18:00 hours of Sharjah time, the vessel sank in deep sea water, causing inter alia total loss of the cargo boarded in the vessel. The Captain and the crew members saved their life.
(c) The Insured informed the Insurer about the incident of submergence of the vessel and loss caused due to it, on 17.08.2012, requesting to register the insurance claim. Simultaneously the Insured forwarded photographs and video clip relating to the incident and other relevant documents to the Insurer. The Insured also informed State Bank of India, Bhuj Branch (the financer) on 19.08.2012 and Superintendent of Customs, Old Port Authority, Kutch, Port Officer, Bandar Road, Kutch, Custom Officer, Mandvi, Kutch, Immigration Officer and Police Sub-Inspector, Mundra Wing, Kutch, Mercantile Marine Department, Gandhidham, Kutch, about the incident, vide letter dated 21.08.2012. The Insured submitted Insurance Claim of Rs.325/- lacs before opposite party-3 on 23.08.2012.
(d) The Insurer appointed Uday Murty, Dubai, as the surveyor for survey and assessment of loss. The Insured, through emails dated 25.08.2012 and 27.08.2012, requested the In
Rajkumar and Brothers (Impex) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
In a Marine Cargo Voyage policy, Motor Vessel if was not classified M.V. claim of insurance rightly denied.
Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy – Insurer cannot be held liable for any loss or damage to insured cargo on account of negligence or fault of Master of ship.
(1) Liability – The liability of the Insurance Company under the policy is clear as the claim is reimbursable in terms of the risk cover under clause-1 of the schedule pertaining to the sinking of a ....
(1) Marine Hull Insurance Policy – Mere knowledge on part of insurer that there was breach of warranty would not amount to waiver in absence of express representation to that effect.(2) Issue of insu....
(1) Claim of Insured not been repudiated rather it has been accepted, as such various grounds raised in written reply/arguments for repudiation of the claim have to be ignored. (2) It is well settled....
(1) Settlement – The insurance Company was required either to accept or reject the report of the surveyor and offer settlement to insured within thirty days.(2) Surveyor – The report of surveyor is v....
Marine Insurance Policy – Delay on part of Insurance Company in securing Final Survey Report and further delay in issuing letter of repudiation, cannot per se lead to complaint being allowed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.