O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
The complainants claimed Rs. 3,,00,000/- from the opposite party for the boat, sunk in sea waters.
1 It is their case the owner of the boat bearing No. KKD 1423 was insured with the opposite party. It was insured for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. As the fishing was not encouraging in Narasapur area that was brought to Kakinada. On 09.05.1994 the complainants came to know the said boat was sunkened near Kothapalem. The crew was rescued by engine nava and the said factum was intimated to boat owners association, Kakinada. It is also their case the respondent appointed surveyor. As per the instructions of the surveyor M/s. Metcalfe Hudgkinson Pvt. Ltd., the husband of 1st complainant conducted search operations but of no avail. Later her husband died 06.11.1996 by drowning in the sea. Later in spite of their representations the opposite party did not settle the amount. They also issued notice. The claim was resisted by the opposite party stating that the complainant did not seek any damages during the life time of husband of the 1st complainant or by themselves and in fact the husband of the 1st complainant is not at all the owner and no claim form was submitted nor any surveyor was deputed as alleged by the complainants. Thus, they sought dismissal of the complaint.
2 Before this Forum at the first instance Exs. A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the complainants and no evidence was letin by the opposite party.
3 After considering the material on record, this Forum dismissed the claim made by the complainant. Aggrieved by the said dismissal the complainants preferred FA No. 1099 of 2006. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Hyderabad by the order dated 30.04.2009 remanded the matter to this Forum directing to give opportunity to lead evidence to both parties and disposed off the complaint.
4 While remanding the matter the members of State Forum opined that it would be appropriate to remand the matter providing opportunity to the appellants to establish the factum of lodgment of claim by the husband of appellant No.1 and other related facts.
5 The State Forum found that the ownership of the deceased of the boat was established so also it is insurable interest in the boat was proved.
6 Now the points were determination:
- Whether the husband of the 1st complainant of the complainants in fact lodged any claim with the opposite party claiming amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as sought by him?
7 After remand the complainants have not exhibited any documents except Ex.A1 to A18 which were already marked at the 1st instance, when the matter was disposed of this Forum. But the complainants examined the 1st complainant as Pw1, Oleti Venkateswarlu as Pw2 and one Rekadi Tatarao as PW3. Their versions at best would indicate the sinking of the boat. In fact there is no iota of evidence with regard to the complainants or the husband of 1stcomplainant lodging any claim with the opposite party.
8 Here it may also be pointed out that in pursuance of summons of this Forum the Manager, M/s. Metcalfe Hudgkinson Pvt. Ltd, submitted a letter which is available in the record and it is to the effect that they have not attended boat survey on behalf of United India Insurance Company Ltd, and they have not found any survey report in their Kakinada and Mumbai Offices. Thus this letter would amply demonstrates that the version of the complainants the services of surveyor were also requisition is not supported by any material and other hand it was falsified by the letter given by the Manager of the above said firm. Though the opportunity was given to the complainants after remand they could not produce any material showing their lodgment their claim with the opposite party.
9 Here it is not out of place to mention according to the complainants the boat was sunk on 09.05.1994 and the husband of the 1st complainant died on 06.11.1996 and later the complainants issued notice on 09.11.2002. Thus even by the date of death of the 1st complainant’s husband the claim was barred by limitation U/Sec.24[A] of C.P. Act. Even thereafter the complainants kept quite for the period of six years without issuing any notice to the opposite party. Thus the claim is also hopeless barred by limitation.
10 Thus in the circumstances the complainants failed to establish that the husband of the 1st complainant lodged any claim with the opposite party and consequently they are not entitled for any amount sought by them. Hence the point is answered against the complainants.
11 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 28th day of November, 2014
Sd/- XXX Sd/- XXX Sd/- XXXXXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant :
PW1: Chekka Dhanalakshmi [1st complainant]
PW2: Oleti Venkateswarlu
PW3: Rekadi Tatarao
For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 22.04.1999 Xerox copy of receipt No. 632970 issued by the Branch office of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Samalkot for Rs. 2781/- paid by late Chekka Ramudu towards premium for insurance of his boat KKD 1423.
Ex.A2 13.07.1993 Xerox copy of licence granted to late Chekka Ramudu for boat KKD 1423 by the Port Officer, Kakinada under A.P. State Ports Harbour Craft Rules, 1980 made under the provision of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 together with renewal endorsement
Ex.A3 30.06.1990 Xerox copy of certificate of Fisheries Training Course issued to Voleti Venkateswarlu by the principal Fishermen Training Institute, Kakinada
Ex.A4 30.05.1994 Xerox copy of statement of Dh. Prasada Rao, Proprietor, Sri.Prasad Marine Service, Kakinada
Ex.A5 09.05.1994 A bunch of Xerox copies of 5 telegram receipts issued by central telegraph office, Kakinada
Ex.A6 Xerox copy of certificate issued by a Police Officer
Ex.A7 07.10.1994 Xerox copy of letter from Director, Cyclone Warning Centre, Visakhapatnam t late Chekka Ramudu
Ex.A8 16.01.1995 Xerox copy of statement of late Chekka Ramudu, owner of fishing boat royya type KKD 1423 stated to have been notarized by a notary.
Ex.A9 16.01.1995 Xerox copy of statement of Voleti Venkateswarlu, tindal cum driver of fishing boat Royya type KKD 1423 stated to have been notarized by a notary central telegraph office, Kakinada
Ex.A10 16.01.1995 Xerox copy of statement of lascar of fishing boat royya type KKD 1423 stated to have been notarized by a notary.
Ex.A11 xerox copy of statement of owner and kalsees of Gilnet engine nava
Ex.A12 Xerox copy of statement of owner of salvage boats FKKD 467 and FKKD 572
Ex.A13 Xerox copy of death certificate of late Chekka Ramudu
Ex.A14 Xerox copy of representation of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A15 Office copy legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A16 Acknowledgment
Ex.A17 office copy of the rejoinder
Ex.A18 Acknowledgment
For opposite party:- - NIL -
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxxxx
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
