IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 07th day of July, 2022.
Filed on 07.02.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- C.K.lekhamma, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
-
CC/No.29/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Sabu 1. Teh Director
S/o Babu Directorate of Fisheries
Sharavana Bhavanam Vikas Bhavan, Trivandrum
Komana, Ambalappuzha P.O.
Alappuzha 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(Party in person) CWC Building, Trivandrum-695033
(By Adv.Sri.T.S.Suresh)
ORDER
C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainants case are as follows:-
Complainant is the owner of fishing boat bearing No. IND-KL-03-MO-2464 &1764/2017. The same was insured with the 2nd opposite party through the office of the 1st opposite party in Alappuzha on 16/1/2020 as per book No. 00128 and paid contribution of the premium Rs. 714/- remitted. On 16/5/2020 boat was halted after fishing at the southern side of Thottappally harber. Unfortunately during the night the same was totally destroyed due to heavy wind and wave. In which the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.6 lakhs. The incident was registered with costal police Thottappally on 27/5/2020 and was communicated to the fisheries Deputy Director,Alappuzha on 20/9/2021. But no action was taken by them till date. Thereafter sent lawyers notice dtd. 29/9/2021 to the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this commission for seeking following reliefs.
1. Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant.
2. Direct to pay compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings.
2. 1st opposite party filed version in short is as follows:-
This opposite party contented that on 20/5/2020 the complainant had submitted an application before the Deputy Director Fisheries ,Alappuzha for claiming Rs.6 lakhs for the loss sustained to his fishing boat. Accordingly an inspection has been conducted by the said office and quantified at the loss of Rs.3,61,465/-(Three lakhs sixty one thousand four hundred and sixty five only). As per the said report requested to the government on 5/11/2021 to allow said amount from the CMDRF. Accordingly they asked the details about his insurance premium.
On 16/3/2020 the complainant remitted 10% of the beneficial contribution of premium. The same was communicated by the fisheries Deputy Director Alappuzha on 18/3/2020 to the 1st opposite parties office and the same was received on 20/3/2020. Unfortunately on 24/3/2020 the government declared lock down due to covid -19. Therefore, every institution was shutdown except essential services. After about situation on 1/6/2020 the entire document has been handed over to the 2nd opposite party with the contribution of the government ie, 90% amount. Hence the complainant is entitled to the one year policy coverage from 1/6/2020 onwards. The delay occurred for transferring the said documents to insurance company is not latches of this opposite party. At the same time this opposite party convinced the government about the delay occurred in taking the insurance policy and considered said aspects also, sanctioned the amount. Hence the complainant is not at all eligible for further amount from this opposite party.
3. Brief facts of the 2nd opposite party’s version is that:-
That the above complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. All the averments in the complaint except the averments herein after expressly admitted are being false, hence denied.
At the outset it is submitted that there is no policy coverage as on the date of accident on 16/5/2020. The Hull and Machinery policy issued by this opposite party in favour of the complainant vide policy No. 1004002220P1028823117 w.e.f. 4/6/2020 to 3/6/2021 will not cover the date of accident on 16/5/2020 and there is no previous policy also. Hence in any event this opposite party has no liability at all. Hence the complaint has no locus standi to raise any deficiency of service from the part of the company, since there is no valid policy. In any event the complainant is not entitled for any relief, compensation, interest, cost etc, since there is no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party.
4.Points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1.Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in services? If so what would be the quantum of compensation?
2.Reliefs and costs?
5. The complainant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Ext. A1 to A5 were marked. Ext. B1 was marked from side of the 2nd opposite party .1st opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
6.Point.no.1
The case of the complainant is that he had insured his fishing vessel with the 2nd opposite party, the insurance company through the 1st opposite party, and paid his contribution of Rs.714/ towards the premium to the 1st opposite party and issued Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of the vessel with the 1st opposite party. Unfortunately the fishing vessel was damaged at the night of 16.5.2020 due to heavy wind and wave and Ext. A3 is the copy of G.D. Abstract prepared by the Thottappalli police authority about the incident. It was alleged that though the petition filed before the 1st opposite party's Alappuzha office they did not take any steps to disburse the insurance amount. Consequently issued Ext. A 4 lawyers notice to them. But did not take any steps till the date. The damage quantified as Rs .6,00,000 /-.
Admittedly the complainant has remitted his contributions of premium amount with 1st opposite party on 16.3.2020. The 1st opposite party contended that the same was communicated to them by their Alappuzha office on 20.3.2020. It is not in dispute that the alleged incident and loss sustained to the complainant. But the 2nd opposite party contended that at the time of incident there was no policy with them and produced the Ext.B1 policy. As per the B1 the policy commenced on 4.6.2020 to 3.6.2021. According to the 1st opposite party even though, the 10% of complainant's contribution of the policy was received and the 90% contribution was also sanctioned by the Govt .But the relevant documents could not transfer in time to the 2nd opposite party due to the consequences of lockdown and the subsequent restrictions of covid 19. Consequently, it was possible to transfer the amount to the 2nd opposite party only on 1.6.2020. Considering the above aspects and recommended the Govt for sanctioning Rs.3,61,465/-infavour of the complainant from CMDRF.
On going through the facts and evidence of the case it is found that before the alleged incident ie.on 16.5.2020 , the complainant remitted his contribution of premium to the 1st opposite party on 16.3.2020. It is admitted by the 1st opposite party that the premium amount was transferred to the 2nd opposite party on 1.6. 2020. It is found that the policy commenced on 4.6.2020. The 1st opposite party contended that it is not their latches to transfer the amount .It is found that after received contribution on 16.3.2020 from the complainant, on 24.3.2020 the lockdown was declared by the Govt. After 2 to 3 months were taken to normalize the situation. It is found that after that 1st opposite party takes the step to transfer the premium amount to the 2nd opposite party. Nothing is before us to show that the complainant arrived the amount of Rs.600000/-as the loss sustained to him. As per Ext. B1 policy the sum assured is Rs.3,47,500/-The 1st opposite party contended that they have given representation to the Govt for an amount of s.3,61,465/-as loss sustained to the complainant after considering the grievance of the complainant. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we found that there is no deficiency service committed by the 1st opposite party. B1 policy the sum assured is R.3,47,500/-.The 1st opposite party contended that they have given representation to the Government for an amount of Rs.3,61465/-as loss sustained to the complainant so the said amount is more than the sum assured. It is to be noted that the said aspect was mentioned in the version of the 1st opposite party. Moreover, the complainant did not care to implead the state in the party array. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we found that there is no deficiency service committed by the 1st opposite party. At the same time, 2nd opposite party is the unnecessary party in this proceedings since at the time of incident the complainant has no policy with them. Therefore, this complaint has no merit.
7. Point.no 2:-
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 07th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Sabu (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC book
Ext.A2 - Receipt dtd.16.03.2020
Ext.A3 - Copy of general diary
Ext.A4 - Copy of legal notice dtd.20.09.2021
Ext.A5 - Postal receipt
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext..B1 - Copy of policy with condition issued by opposite party
//True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
