Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

159/2014

Sri.M.Moorthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Ltd,Rep.by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.F.Kamal Baig Arunkumar Rajan

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.10.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 09^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

C.C.NO.159/2014

 

Sri.M.Moorthy,

S/O.Sri.Munisamy,

Door No.10/18, A.J.Colony, 1^st Street,

Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.                                        .... Complainant

 

                                                                        ..Vs..

	The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, No.19,  Andiappa Gramani Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.                                    ..Opposite Party
	.

Date of complaint                                  : 06.08.2014

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/S.F.Kamal Baig Arunkumar Rajan

Counsel for   Opposite party                    :Nageswaran & Narichania

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant states that on 23.08.2012 he purchased a fishing boat named SEA STAR at Cochin bearing registration No.ALP – 2987, fitted with Ashok Leyland 401 Engine bearing no. Al- 11799, HP-106 having length 15.25 M, breadth 49M and Draft 3.35M: from one C.B.Latheef vide a sale agreement dated 23.08.2012. He spent a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to refurbish the fishing boat and the refurbishing work was also conducted at Cochin. After the refurbishing work was completed, the complainant applied for insurance of the fishing boat with the Opposite Party on 30.01.2013 and after being satisfied about the ownership and the fitness condition of the fishing boat, the Opposite Party issued the insurance policy bearing No.012900/22/12/01/00002397 insuring the hull and machinery of the boat for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and collected a sum of Rs.9,297/- towards premium amount. On 01.02.2013 he and his crew began their voyage to Chennai and on 02.02.2013, when the boat was sailing about 15 nautical miles from Mandaikkadu sea area near Kulachal,  at about 06.30 pm  suddenly the sea became rough and due to the high tides, the fishing boat was severely damaged and washed ashore the Mandaikkadu sea shore. There was no prior intimation from the meteorological department about any bad weather and there was a sudden unexpected change in the weather. On 11.02.2013  he went to the Kulachal Sea Police Station and informed about the incident and the same was recorded as C.S.R.No.1/2013. The Sub-inspector of Police inspected the debris of the boat lying at the Mandaikkadu sea shore and on 13.02.2013, issued a “Truthiness Certificate”. The intimation about the incident was also given to the Opposite Party and on 13.02.2013, the surveyors of the Opposite Party visited the site and inspected the boat and gave their report dated 18.02.2013. He had submitted his claim to the Opposite Party along with all the necessary particulars as requested by the surveyor in the report dated 18.02.2013 and was expecting the insurance money. However to the utter shock and disappointment of the complainant, he received a letter dated 03.10.2013  from the Opposite Party denying the claim of the complainant for the reason that, though the ownership of the fishing boat was transferred to the complainant on 23.08.2012, since it was not endorsed in the certificate or registration, the claim is not payable. Since the fishing boat was damaged on its way from Cochin to Chennai, it could not be brought to Chennai and hence the registration could not be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice and was acknowledged by the Opposite Party on 04.06.2014. On 30.06.2014 the Opposite Party issued a reply notice evasively denying the claims of the complainant. Therefore the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service and hence the complaint is filed against the Opposite Party for Insurance claim and compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has not filed any document to show that he is the registered owner of the fishing vessel Sea Star. Further, only an agreement of sale dated 28.03.2012 has been filed by the complainant. The complainant has not filed any document to show that the agreement of sale was acted upon and the fishing vessel was purchased by the complainant. As per the proposal form furnished by the complainant to the Opposite Party, the fishing vessel was registered with Chennai Port authorities. Further, the name of the registration authority was given as Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department as found in the proposal form. The complainant had sought insurance cover for his fishing vessel by furnishing Marine Hull Proposal Form dated 31.01.2012. The complainant had furnished in the proposal form that the vessel was to be registered   with Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department at Chennai bearing No.ALP 2987. A policy of insurance bearing No.012900/22/12/01/00002397 was issued for the period from 31.01.2013 to 30.01.2014. The complainant furnished a marine claim form on 22.03.2013, lodging a claim for damage to the vehicle. The complainant has furnished the Certificate of Registration of Mechanized fishing vessel bearing the name SEA STAR and number AL2987 registered under Kerala State Owner as Sri.G.B.Latheef, who purchased the vessel by a sale agreement dated 23.01.2010. The certificate does not reflect the name of the complainant anywhere. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as he is not the owner of the fishing vessel ‘Sea Star’.  Merely issuing the policy in good faith based on the proposal form will not mean that there was thorough inspection. Therefore the contention that the fishing vessel was insured after inspection is denied. The complainant wanted to cover the fishing vessel under a marine hull policy; he was not the owner of the fishing vessel. The complainant has not filed a document to prove the value of the fishing vehicle. Merely if there was an agreement for sale fixing the consideration for sale, the same cannot be the ground upon which the vessel’s valuation could be established. Unless the complainant can establish the value of the fishing vessel through documentary evidence, the contention regarding the value of the vehicle as the sale agreement value is baseless. The Opposite Party appointed a licensed surveyor and loss assessor to evaluate the loss due to the damage to the fishing vessel. The said surveyors M/S.J.Basheer & Associates conducted a detailed survey and issued their report bearing No. JBPL/CHN/093/12-13 dated 08.07.2013. The Opposite Party submits that on 03.10.2013, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim correctly for the reason that ownership of the fishing vessel was not properly transferred and proper certification of ownership was not available with the complainant as on the date of loss. The complainant had obtained insurance cover by misrepresentation that the fishing vessel was registered at Chennai part and the appropriate authority was the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department. No such registration had taken place and fishing vessel was still registered with Government of Kerala. The legal notice issued by the complainant was appropriately replied by the counsel for the Opposite Party. At no point of time, there was any deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint with cost of the Opposite Party.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT:1

          It is an admitted fact that one Mr.C.B.Latheef, Cochin is the owner of the fishing boat named SEA STAR at Cochin, bearing Reg.No.ALP-2987 manufactured by Ashok Leyland and to purchase the sail boat, the Complainant entered into Ex.A1 agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and the Complainant insured the sail boat with the opposite party on payment of premium of Rs.9,297/- and the opposite party issued Ex.A5 insurance policy in the name of Complainant for the period 31.01.2013 to 30.01.2014 and the surveyor of opposite party inspected the boat  and insured  for the value of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter the complainant begain his voyage to Chennai and on 02.02.2013 when the boat was sailing 15 nautical miles from mandaikadu sea area near kulachal at about 6.30 p.m,  suddenly  the sea became rough and due to the high tides, the fishing boat was severely damaged and  washed ashore in the mandaikadu seashore and the Complainant gave a complaint to the Kulachal police station and the said police issued Ex.A6 C.S.R. receipt and the police investigated and issued EX.A7 certificate and thereafter the Complainant made a claim to the opposite party insurance and the said claim was repudiated under Ex.A11 stating that the ownership was not endorsed on the certificate of registration of the insured fishing vessel and thereafter the Complainant issued Ex.A13 legal notice dated 02.06.2014 and for which the opposite party issued Ex.A14 reply and thereafter the Complainant filed this complaint claiming insurance, compensation and cost.

          5. The counsel for Complainant contended that since the boat purchased by the Complainant through Ex.A2 Agreement of sale and he has also paid the entire amount and the boat also insured by the 2^nd opposite party under Ex.A5 insurance policy and during transit the boat was severely damaged, as per the policy the Complainant is entitled for compensation and the claim repudiated by the opposite party cannot be justified.

          6. The opposite party counsel replied that there is no proof filed by the Complainant to show that he is the owner of the boat and further no temporary registration certificate produced that the boat can travel from Kerala to Tamil Nadu and even though the boat was insured without registration of vehicle, the insurance coverage is not valid and for the said proposition he relied on the orders of the National Commission reported in IV (2014) CPJ 102 (NC) (CONSUMER GUIDANCE SOCIETY VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR) and I (2015) CPJ 760 (NC) (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. KISHORE SHARMA) and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint. 

7.Ex.A1 is the certificate of registration showing the ownership of the boat ALP 2987 SEA STAR initially one Mr.P.Johnson was the owner of the said fishing boat and he transferred the ownership by way of sale dated 23.01.2010 to one Mr.C.P. Latheef, Cochin.  The said Latheef entered into agreement on 23.08.2012 under Ex.A2 to sell the sail boat to the Complainant.  In pursuance of the Ex.A2 agreement the Complainant insured the boat with the opposite party and also got Ex.A5 insurance policy.  However in Ex.A1 certificate of registration, the Complainant name was not transferred as the owner of the sail boat till date and the said C.P.Latheef is only the owner as per certificate of registration. Ex.A2 is only a mere agreement for sale.  The Complainant has not filed any other document to show that he is the owner of the sail boat.  The National Commission held in IV (2014) CPJ 102 (NC) that when there is no document to show that ownership of property was transferred, the Complainant has no insurable interest at the time of policy and the National Commission further held in I (2015) CPJ 760 (NC) that the vehicle was plying at the time of accident without registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate against terms and conditions of policy the repudiation of claim is justified.  Relying on the above orders of the national commission, in the case in hand though the boat was insured at the time of accident, the Complainant has not established that he is owner of the vehicle and as per Ex.A5 policy the Complainant has no insurable interest and he is not entitled for the claim based on insurance policy.  Further to move the boat from Kerala to Tamil Nadu he has not obtained any permit to undertake the voyage through sea.  Therefore the Complainant has not filed registration certificate or any other certificate to accept that he is the owner of the boat and in view of that he has no insurable interest to make claim based on insurance policy and in view of the same the repudiation of the claim made by the opposite party under Ex.A11 & A12 is acceptable and therefore in that respect the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

8.POINT:2

           Since the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and   in view of the same the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and accordingly this point is answered.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of October 2015.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                           Certificate of registration

 

Ex.A2 dated 23.08.2012                Agreement of sale

                                                         

Ex.A3 dated 30.01.2013                Inspection report of the Surveyor

 

Ex.A4 dated 31.01.2013                Receipt for payment of Insurance Premium

 

Ex.A5 dated 31.01.2013                Insurance Policy

 

Ex.A6 dated 11.02.2013               C.S.R.issued by the Kulachel Sea Police Station

 

 

Ex.A7 dated 13.02.2013               Truthiness Certificate issued by the SI, Kulachel

                                                         Sea Police Station

Ex.A8 dated 18.02.2013                   Inspection report of the Surveyor

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                                Affidavit of the Laskar

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Affidavit of the complainant and Driver

 

Ex.A11 dated 03.10.2013                 Letter of the Opposite Party repudiating claim

 

Ex.A12 dated 17.03.2014                 Letter of the customer care of the Opposite Party

                                                           Repudiating claim

 

Ex.A13 dated 02.06.2014                 Legal notice issued by the complainant and

                                                              Acknowledgement

 

Ex.A14 dated 30.06.2014                 Reply notice issued by the Opposite Party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Ex.B1dated 31.01.2012          Marine Hull Proposal Form

 

Ex.B2 dated 08.07.2013                   Survey Report with Enclosures

           

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT