ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PEMMADI NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Complaint No.CD/31/1995 decided in favour of Pemmadi Narasimha Murthy, Respondent herein.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant in the year 1998 had secured a loan from M/s Deepa Financial Pvt. Ltd. to get a boat constructed from private boat builders, and the same was insured with Appellant/Insurance Company for Rs.7 lakhs on 09.12.1991 with the provision of continuous renewal of the policy. The boat was being used by the Respondent for fishing operations between Kakinada and Vishakhapatnam. On 09.09.1992 after ensuring that the boat was in working order and after loading it with the required amenities including diesel oil, ice, ration etc., Respondent sent the boat for fishing at 2.00 a.m. towards Vodlarum. While the crew was fishing in the Masanitippa area, the Captain of the boat noticed that the boat was taking jolts and on checking, the crew found that the inner compartment of the boat was flooded with water. The water level kept on increasing abnormally and the crew pulled the net on the boat and navigated it towards the shore to save the boat from imperilment as also their own lives. Within half an hour, the water entered into the engine and the boat sank at about 4.00 p.m. near Masanitippa area. The crew members who had jumped out were rescued by another boat bearing No.KKD 1586. Respondent was informed about the mishap on 16.09.1992 who in turn informed the Appellant/Insurance Company telegraphically on 17.09.1992 and personally on 18.09.1992. Appellant/Insurance Company appointed M/s Seascan Services Pvt.Ltd. as Surveyors. A search operation was also started with Salvers under the supervision of Insurance Surveyor to trace the boat but in vain. The Surveyor gave a detailed report confirming the Respondent's version of the incident and also concluding that the mechanized fishing vessel was a total loss having sunk at sea off the coast of Masanitippa. Despite this report and after all the necessary documents had been submitted to the Appellant/Insurance Company, the insurance claim of the Respondent was not settled. On 31.01.1995, Respondent sent a legal notice to which the Appellant/Insurance Company replied that the matter was referred to its Hyderabad Regional Office. Since, neither the claim of the Respondent was repudiated nor the same was settled, Respondent approached the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service on the part of Appellant/Insurance Company and requested that directions be issued to pay the insurable amount of Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ 18% as also costs.

(3.) Appellant on being served filed a counter admitting that the boat was insured for Rs.7 lakhs but stated that the claim of the Respondent was repudiated on genuine grounds because as informed to the Respondent vide letter dated 31.03.1995, there was no adequate proof that the boat had sunk as claimed. It was further contended by Respondent that since it had several doubts about the veracity of the Report of the first Surveyor, it rejected the same and appointed another Surveyor i.e. M/s IMASCO to re-look into the matter who confirmed vide their Report that the boat did not sink near the Masanitippa but in fact was sold to a party in Orissa, thus justifying the repudiation.