SARVALAXMI MARINES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the appellant / complainant was in the business of marine food which also included fishing in deep seas. Undoubtedly, the complainant had a 'Boat' which he had purchased on 31.5.1989 and was registered as a sea going vessel with the Port Authorities on 16.6.1989. This boat was insured for Rs. 16.5 lakh with the respondent Insurance Company for the period from 7.11.1990 to 6.11.1991. This boat left for fishing expedition on 29.1.1991 and starting collecting fish, but while the vessel was fishing in the sea, flooding of engine room consequent upon the breaking of stern tube, was noticed at about 04 :30 hrs on 30.1.1991. Thereafter the 'lascar' abandoned the sinking boat and started swimming. As per the complainant, the boat sank at about 03.00 hrs on 31.1.1991 and crew who had jumped / abandoned the boat and had started swimming, was rescued by another boat, which landed at the Dibbalapalem around 07.00 hrs. on 31.1.1991. The incident was reported to the Port Conservator, Visakhapatnam and Police Station and the Marine Mercantile Department, Visakhapatnam and Kakinada Port Office. The respondent Insurance Company was intimated on 31.1.1991 who appointed a Surveyor M/s. Sea Scan Services Private Ltd., who submitted its report on 13.4.1992 concluding that this was a case of 'total loss' of boat. It appears that subsequent to receiving of this report an Investigator was appointed by the respondent Insurance Company on 7.7.1993, i.e., almost after two and a half years of the episode and almost one year and four months after receiving the report of the first Surveyor. Yet when the case of the appellant was not getting, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint primarily relying upon the report of the Investigator, i.e., a retired Police Officer. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length. There is no dispute about the fact that the boat was insured during the relevant period and it is also not in dispute that after sinking the boat when the matter was reported to the respondent, they appointed a Surveryo as per law, who reported this to be a case of 'total loss' vide its report dated 13.4.1992.