S KAMALA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Insurance Company.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the complaint before the State Commission were that appellant/complainant was the registered owner of a fishing vessel, which was insured with the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 7,54,000. On 30.4.1993, the vessel started from Madras Harbour for fishing operation and when it was going towards Kovalam, the engine of the said vessel ceased to function. Efforts made by the crew members for grounding the vessel went in vain. The hull was completely broken and machinery was damaged. The incident was reported to the Insurance Company, who appointed the surveyor. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 13.2.95 on the ground that the vessel had no valid licence on the incident date. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, passed a detailed order dismissing the complaint, hence this appeal before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that at best the absence of licence to take the vessel for fishing would amount to an irregularity. He relied upon the terms of 'Trading Warranty' incorporated in the body of the Policy as also the 'Trading Warranty' attached with the Policy issued. The terms. 'Trading Warranty' as they appear in the body of the conditions of the Policy reads as under: 'Trading Warranty': As attached (To be included as per the Tariff) subject to no breach of local port regulations regarding sailing warranted Vessel to comply with local laws and regulations with regard to Registration and licensing."