The Insurance Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints concerning policies from proprietorships or commercial lines, as these do not fall under personal lines as defined by relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

First respondent submitted Ext.P1 complaint to the 2^nd respondent Insurance Ombudsman on 16.06.2015. Second respondent stated in the complaint that the petitioner company repudiated a claim for compensation raised by them on the basis of Ext.P5 marine cargo specific voyage policy obtained on 15.06.2012.

2. First respondent transported 1,657 metric tons of soda ash from Porbandar Port on 15.06.2012 through a barge. The barge was not able to anchor at the destination, which was Mangalore Port, due to adverse weather conditions. It was diverted to Beypore Port. When the soda ash was unloaded, it was noticed that a huge quantity of bags, amounting to 114.50 metric tons, was damaged. During the entire voyage, the sea was rough, and water happened to enter the vessel, resulting in damage to the material.

3. Petitioner company rejected the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.23,56,066/- lodged by the 1^st respondent. Hence, Ext.P1 complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman. On receipt of notice from the Ombudsman, the petitioner company submitted Ext.P2 on 27.07.2015. The petitioner stated that they were agreeable to the Ombudsman acting as a mediator between the complainant and the company and giving recommendations for the resolution of the complaint. However, the company added a note stating the reasons for rejecting the claim. It was also pointed out in Ext.P2 that the policy was issued in the name of the 1^st respondent which was a partnership company and complaints from such firms were not liable to be entertained by the Insurance Ombudsman. By Ext.P4 dated 5.08.2015 petitioner raised objections against considering the complaint of the 1^st respondent. It was submitted by the company that Ombudsman was empowered to receive and consider complaints in respect of personal lines of insurance only. It was contended that the 1^st respondent was a partnership company and the policy issued to it was a marine policy on commercial line. The petitioner requested the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint for the above said reasons.

4. Ombudsman passed the impugned award on 14.10.2015. Ombudsman considered the following points:-

“a) Whether this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear this complaint?

b) Was the policy issued correctly ?

c) Was the damage due to rain water as alleged by the Insurer?

d) Whether damage due to rain water is excluded under the policy?

e) Whether the grounds of repudiation were correct?

f) Quantum of relief, if any.”

5. Regarding the jurisdiction to consider the complaint Ombudsman observed that the 1^st respondent was a proprietary concern. Unlike a partnership or company the proprietorship business cannot be separated from the owner. The Ombudsman also noted that the 1^st respondent agreed to limit the claim to Rs.20,00,000/- as the power of the Ombudsman to grant relief of compensation was circumscribed at Rs.20,00,000/-. Further the Ombudsman noted that the petitioner had agreed by Ext.P2 dated 27.07.2015 for mediation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Ombudsman held that the petitioner company, after expressing consent, cannot argue that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. Contention of the petitioner company regarding jurisdiction was overruled by the Ombudsman and the complaint was considered on merits. The petitioner company was directed, by the impugned award, to pay the 1^st respondent Rs.20,00,000/-.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the award passed by the Ombudsman raising diverse contentions. Learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the Ombudsman pointing