LAGADAPATI CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a) read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following allegations.

(2.) THE complainant is a resident of Kakinada in East Godavari District and the owner of mechanised fishing Pablo type boat bearing No. KKD 1681 which was constructed in 1986. The said boat was registered at Kakinada Port and the complainant has been paying the registration charges every year. The complainant insured the said boat with the New India Assurance Company Limited branch at Kakinada (opposite party) and obtained a Marine Hull Insurance Policy No. 82581/2/0269/131 for the period from 24.12.1987 to 23.3.1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and the premium is Rs. 1,073/ -. After coming to know that there is potentiality for fishing in Bhairavapalem of Kakinada the complainant after making necessary preparations for fishing, conducted operations on the evening of 1.3.1988. Again on the next day i.e. on 2.3.1988 at about 3.00 p.m. he sent his boat for fishing operations after the driver checked the level of engine oil, propeller, shafts, etc., of the boat and confirmed the suitability for fishing operations. The boat got good amount of fish and prawns in the 1st and 2nd hauls till 11.30 a.m. on that day and when they started 3rd haul at about 12.00 noon on that day there was a sudden change in the weather and the intensity of the sologam wind  increased gradually resulting in the sea becoming rough and raising of currents severly. When the boat was started for going to Kakinada, a big wave hit the boat on its right side and the boat turned turtle on its left side suddenly. The crew was thrown into the sea. The boat completely sank in the sea at about 2.00 p.m. The crew was rescued by another crew of Royya type boat of Sri Bandana Tatabbai of Kakinada. The complainant immediately informed the Port Office at Kakinada about the accident. He also informed the opposite party by way of a telegram on the same day. He also orally informed the opposite party about the accident. He tried his best to trace the boat with the help of the salvage party viz. Dharmadi Appa Rao and party on 3.8.1988 and 4.8.1988 but in vain. He submitted all his documents to the Surveyor appointed by the opposite party. The Surveyor submitted a report to the opposite party with the statements of his crew and others and recommended for settling the claim of the complainant. The Divisional Manager of the opposite party informed the complainant when he met him in his office that he directed further investigation in the matter. One D. Appa Rao who was appointed as Investigator investigated into the matter and sent a report. The complainant came to know that the opposite party appointed another Investigator by name Metcalfe Survey Company to investigate the matter, but so far the claim of the complainant was not settled. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay the policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - with interest at 12% per annum from 2.3.1988 till the date of realisation. Hence the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - with interest at 12% per annum from 2.3.1988 till the date of realisation, compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - and costs.

(3.) THE opposite party filed its version/ counter contending that the complaint is far from truth on the facts of the case, that there is neither deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, that the complainant is not a consumer, that in view of the investigation report of Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (Private) Limited, Visakhapatnam stating that the complainants claim is fraudulent, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant and that there is no liability to indemnify the complainants claim. It is also stated in the counter that the complainant has to prove that his boat KKD 1681 was in a sea worth condition for conducting fishing operation on 1.3.1988 and his boat sank in the sea due to rough weather, that the certificate given by the Mateorological Department mentions that the. sky was cloudy but the sea was smooth, that it was learnt that the complainant transferred his ownership to somebody at Nizampatnam even before the date of the alleged accident, that according to the survey report of B. Appa Rao the complainant sold the engine covered as machinery item under the marine hull policy to a mechanic at Kakinada and that the complainant made fraudulent claim. It is also stated in the counter that the insurance policy des not cover consequential losses such as interest, damages, costs, etc., and that the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs.