ANTHONY REBELLO Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 17th May, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa by which it dis¬missed the complaint filed by the present appel¬lant against the respondent herein-New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short Insurance Company).

(2.) THE facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant purchased a vessel "F.T. ANNA" (hereinafter referred to as the said ves¬sel) bearing registration No. MAR 404 D.F. by availing Bank loan from Corporation Bank, Vasco and accordingly the said vehicle was hypoth¬ecated to the said Bank. The said vessel was insured with the respondent and the last renewal was for the period from 6th November, 1990 to 5thNovember, 1991. According to the complain¬ant the said vessel met with an accident on 1st September, 1991 wherein it sank into waters off Bogmolo, in Arabian sea. The complainant in¬formed the casualty of the said vessel to the Insurance Company and also lodged FIR at Vasco Police Station. The Insurance Company asked the complainant to comply with certain requirements and the same were complied with by him on 5th September, 1991. However, on 7th September, 1991 the complainant received a latter dated 28th August, 1991 from the opposite party alleging that the said vessel had ran aground on 30th July, 1991 near Colva and that the front portion of the vessel developed crack and further alleged that the said vessel was docked at Betul and was undergoing repairs on account of the above casualty. Vide that letter the Insurance Company also cancelled the policy covering the said vessel with effect from 15 days of the date of the said letter. The complainant vide his letter dated 9th September, 1991 informed the oppo¬site party that the contents of the letter dated 28th August, 1991 were not correct and were baseless and nothing had happened to the said vessel on 30th July, 1991 nor the vessel was docked at Betul for repairs.

(3.) THE opposite party filed counter contest¬ing the complaint and averred that the said vessel had got damaged in a casualty on 30th July, 1991 while the same was employed during adverse weather conditions and during the lay off period of foul season from 15th June, 1991 to 15th August, 1991 and therefore the opposite party was not responsible for the loss of the said vehicle due to breach of warranty on the part of the complainant. The opposite party also denied the fact that the said vessel had sunk on 1st September, 1991.