VOLETI DURYODHUNUDU Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Sri Voleti Duryodhunudu and another (herein after referred to as the 'Appellants') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (herein after referred to as the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 88/1996 which dismissed their complaint against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., opposite parties before the State Commission and Respondent herein. Facts:

(2.) Appellants had got a built Dolphin type fishing boat with the financial assistance of Sri Venkata Satya Sai Finance, Kakinada and registered it with the Port Authorities as FKKD-041 on 6.7.1990. The boat was insured with the Respondent/ Insurance Company for the period from 14.7.1993 to 13.7.1994 for Rs. 71akh. On the midnight of 2.7.1994, when the boat was conducting fishing operations in Bhavanapadu, suddenly the weather changed, the sky became overcast with gusty gale winds and due to severe lashings and consecutive violent waves the boat got uncontrolled and then capsized on 3.7.1994 at about 6.00 p.m. The crew members were rescued by another boat which brought them to Visakhapatnam Harbour on 4.7.1994. Appellants informed both the Port authorities as also the Respondent/ Insurance Company about the mishap on 4.7.1994 and requested the latter to appoint a Surveyor for settlement of insurance claim. Accordingly, a Surveyor M/s. Reliance Surveillance, Visakhapatnam was appointed by Respondent/ Insurance Company, who after conducting search operations for the boat, interrogating the crew members and surveying the area submitted their report confirming that there was total loss to the boat which had sunk. However, when no intimation was received about 'settling the insurance claim, Appellants contacted Respondent/ Insurance Company who informed that another Investigator, namely, Capt. Jacob Rao, Chief Surveyor M/s. IMASCO, Visakhapatnam had been appointed. Even thereafter, Appellants made several representations seeking settlement of the claim and after several years the claim was illegally repudiated. Being aggrieved, Appellants filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/ Insurance Company be directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 7lakh with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of mishap along with costs, etc.

(3.) Respondent/ Insurance Company on being served filed a written response in which it denied that the repudiation of the insurance claim was wrong. It was contended that since an indepth study was not made by the first Surveyor regarding the incident, Respondent/Insurance Company thereafter appointed an Investigator who conducted an appropriate inquiry and submitted a detailed report according to which it was concluded that there was a Well-organized racket going on in the Kakinada area due to slump in fishing operations and many of the boat owners with the connivance of other agencies were making false claims in which they fabricated and concocted stories about the sinking of their boats as in the instant case. Respondent/Insurance Company further contended that the Appellants could not produce the fuel bills when asked to do so by the Investigator by stating that they were misplaced. The Investigator also had observed that the weather was not as furious or rough on the date of the accident which could have resulted in the snapping of the steering chains of the Appellants' boat and thereafter capsizing In brief, the Investigator in its report stated that the claim was not bona fide and advised its repudiation. It was under these circumstances that the claim was rightly repudiated.