LAWS(NCD)-2024-5-40

VAIBHAVI DREDGING Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Decided On May 10, 2024
Vaibhavi Dredging Appellant
V/S
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') is in challenge to the order dtd. 26/11/2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, Panaji (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint Case No.10 of 2013 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the Appellant, M/s Vaibhavi Dredging Pvt. Ltd is engaged in the business of dredging of ports using barges, tugs and dredgers. A barge owned by the Appellant, Vaibhavi Hopper-II, sank on 15/11/2012 at about 9:30 PM while undertaking dredging work on behalf of Western India Shipyard Ltd. The incident was reported to the Dy. Conservator of Marmagoa Port Trust (MPT) on 16/12/2012. However, the claim was rejected by the Respondent on the ground that there was no concluded contract of insurance as on the date of the incident of sinking of the barge since the premium did not stand deposited by the Appellant with the Respondent. The Appellant challenged this decision of the Respondent by way of CC No.10/2013 before the State Commission which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 26/11/2013 upholding the contentions of the Respondent. This order is impugned before us praying to allow the claim with damages and costs.

(3.) According to the Appellant, there was a concluded contract between Vaibhavi Dredging and the Respondent dtd. 12/12/2012 when the quarterly instalment of ?55,000 by cheque dtd. 12/11/2012 had been deposited with the Respondent who had accepted 4 proposal forms acknowledged by one Shri Prasad Pole. Appellant claims that the Respondent issued two receipts towards payment of ?55,000/- towards premium of the policy. On 16/11/2012 the Respondent was informed by way of a letter of the casualty and requested that the claim be registered, and a surveyor deputed for wreck removal which was duly acknowledged. However, the Respondents took the view that the receipts were 'provisional' and that the requisite documents were not brought by Shri Prasad Pole by the end of day and hence the policy contract was not concluded. Respondent contends that the said Prasad Pole was not an employee of the respondent but a middleman and even the provisional receipts had been obtained without disclosing that one of the barges had sunk on 15/11/2012 while the issuance of any policy would have been w.e.f. 16/11/2012 only.