NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P JESUSDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 23.10.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.89/2006.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Respondent obtained Marine Hull policy of insurance insuring vessel 'Holy Mother' with coverage of Rs. 7,00,000/- for the period 29.05.2002 to 28.05.2003. The said vessel allegedly sank on 07.03.2003 while doing fishing operation at Ernakulum. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who submitted report on 20.01.2004. The claim was finally repudiated by the Insurance Company on 19.07.2004. The respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulum, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum from the date of accident and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The complaint was dismissed on 07.11.2005. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal being No.89/2006 before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal and the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the opposite party to pay the sum insured of Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith 9% per annum interest from the date of order of the State Commission till realisation as well as Rs.25,000/- as cost of proceedings. Aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Commission.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has not considered the main legal requirement which should have been fulfilled by the complainant to get the insurance claim in respect of sank vessel. The main requirement as per the provisions of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 is that the vessel should have been registered in Kerala or should have been registered under the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 (Central Act 13 of 1972). The vessel was registered in the State of Tamil Nadu at Chennai and therefore, without any registration in Kerala, the vessel was not authorised for fishing in the Kerala waters. It was further argued that apart from registration of the vessel, licence was also required for fishing in the Kerala water. No licence has been given by the State of Kerala to the vessel in question. Thus, the main warranty of observing the local law has been violated. To support the requirement of registration and licence to be given by the State of Kerala, learned counsel referred to various Sections such as 2(g), which deals with the registration of the vessel and Section 6 which deals with licencing of fishing vessel under the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980. The learned counsel also referred to Section 7 of this Act, which deals with prohibition of fishing using fishing vessels which are not licensed. Learned counsel further argued that as per Sub Section 6 of Section 9, no vessel, other than a registered fishing vessel, shall be entitled to a licence under Section 6.