Per Mr. D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member

1.       Complainant has filed this consumer complaint against opponent for getting insurance claim in respect of his fishing boat.  Brief facts of the case are as under :

2.       Complainant is a fisherman and carrying on his activities on the coast of Ratnagiri district since last 25 years.  For carrying fishing activities, complainant has purchased an automatic fishing wooden vessel boat known as Zeeshan Ali.  Complainant is doing this work of fishing for earning his livelihood. The vessel boat Zeeshan Ali is duly registered in the office of Ratnagiri vide registration No. IND – MH – 4 – MM – 1047 from 12/8/2011.  For carrying on activities, complainant has also obtained permit from the office of Ratnagiri and the said permit was valid for the period from 27/12/11 to 26/12/14.  The complainant has insured his fishing boat with opponent and the insurance was valid during the period from 1/11/2013 to 31/10/2014.  Complainant had paid amount of premium of Rs.1,11,637/- for the same to the opponent. As per this insurance policy, the sum assured for the fishing boat was Rs.40,00,000/-.

3.       It is the contention of complainant that, unfortunately, the said fishing boat owned by him sank into the sea water on 26/11/2013 due to hole on the lower side of the boat.  On 26/11/2013, complainant approached police authorities to register the complaint in respect of the boat.  However, police informed him that as there are no casualties or loss of human life, they are unable to register the complaint and directed complainant to inform this fact of sinking of boat to the Port Trust office of Jaitapur.  Accordingly, the complainant had gone to the office of Port Trust of Jaitapur and had given information about his boat in that office and that office had informed this fact to the opponent on the same day.  On 27/11/2013, complainant had given letter to Maharashtra Maritime Board Jaitapur Port to make the Panchanama of the incident.  However, office told complainant that for that purpose, they need letter from insurance company.  Hence, on 20/1/14, complainant had given letter to the insurance company and requested to give letter to the Port Trust office for preparing Panchanama.  Complainant had given second letter to insurance company in that respect on 12/2/14.  On 3/4/2014, portal authorities Jaitapur had prepared Panchanama in respect of boat of complainant and had prepared the accidental report. Complainant had also collected all these documents from portal authorities Ratnagiri and had sent the same to opponent on 16/11/2014 and requested them to proceed with the claim.  It is the contention of complainant that, however, till filing of consumer complaint, opponent had neither accepted nor denied the claim of complainant.  It is also the contention of complainant that for preparing that boat, he had made expenditure of Rs.61,28,859/-.  As opponent had not considered the claim of complainant in respect of his boat, ultimately complainant had given legal notice to opponent on 14/3/2017 through his Advocate.  However, opponent insurance company failed to comply with the notice given by the complainant and had also not given amount of sum assured of the boat to the complainant.  In view of the same, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint for getting sum assured of the fishing boat of Rs.40,00,000/- f