IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Date of appeal filed:06.10.2013 Present: -THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.508/2023 FRIDAY, THE 03^RD DAY OF MAY 2024.

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., No.360721, 2^nd floor, Sathyamoorthy Road, Pudukkottai.

…..Appellant/Opposite party.

-Vs-

S. Suresh Kumar, S/o.Soundarrajan, No.1520, Iravali Vayal, Kottaipattinam, Manamelkudi TK, Pudukottai DT.

…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : M/s.M.Mahendra Varman, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Called absent.

Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pudukottai in C.C.No.06/2022, dated 27.07.2023 the Appellant/Opposite party has preferred the appeal. This appeal coming before this Commission for final hearing on 01.04.2024 and perusing upon the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

(Dictated in open court)

1. The Facts:

The complainant one Sureshkumar who is the owner of a Machinist Fishing Boat had insured the boat vessel with the opposite party. The period of coverage is from 27.06.2021 to 26.06.2022. While so, on 18.10.2021 three fishermen went for fishing and the vessel was dashed against the Sri Lankan Naval Ship. The boat was sunk into the deep sea and inspite of spending huge amount, the boat was unable to be recovered. One fisherman died in the crash and another two were injured. When a claim was made through the agent. The insurance company failed to pay the insurance claim even after sending an Advocate Notice. This complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs under various heads.

2. The insurance company in their written version contended that the insurance amount was only for Rs.50,000/- and no claim was made to the insurance company. As such, there cannot be any deficiency in service. Furthermore, admittedly the ship was hit by Sri Lankan Naval Ship which means they crossed over the Indian Sea coastal area and beyond our Limit as such it is a violation of the policy condition.

3. The District Commission after perusal of records directed the Insurance company to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the insured amount and Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10000/- towards costs and also further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh in Consumer Protection Welfare Fund under CP Act 39(10(d) & 39(2).

4. Aggrieved over the same the insurance company preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant in their grounds as well as in the written argument would submit that the District Commission failed to note that the complainant violated the policy condition, since admittedly the vessel went beyond the sea limit of this country, so that the boat was dashed with the Sri Lankan Naval Ship. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant failed to make any claim. Since no claim was made, there is no deficiency in service. In every respect it is his submission that the order of the District Commission is liable to be setaside.

5. The complainant did not appear before this commission and did not file any written argument.

6. Now, Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the insurance company has committed any deficiency in service.

7. Discussion on the Point:

It is an admitted fact that the complainant was the owner of the machinist boat and the boat was insured with the opposite party. The RC as well as insurance policy were marked as Ex.A1 & A2. The insurance amount was not mentioned in the insurance policy. However the District Commission found the insurance amount is only Rs.50,000/- as contended by the opposite party.

8. So, the complainant even if he proved damages to his fishing boat is entitled to only Rs.50,000/- towards insurance claim. But he must prove that his vessel was completely damaged and he made a insurance claim with relevant particulars to the insurance company. Because th