The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission pronounced that in case of any unsurity concerning the admissibility of an insurance claim, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the insured.
Case of the Complainant
The owner of the vessel (complainant) approached NCDRC after the insurance claim was rejected by the insurance company, Oriental Insurance.
Case of the Opposite Party
Oriental Insurance took into consideration the report submitted by its investigator and contended that it was case of a poorly maintained vessel which suffered vibrations over a period of time and ultimately resulted in a breach in the hull.
However, the complainant refuted the contentions by stating that the vessel when it set sail was sea worthy and was certified to be so by the authorities. It was claimed that the vessel sank upon some unidentified object hitting it from below and causing a breach in the hull.
The first surveyor also conceded with the complainant’s case. On the enquiry being made by the owner, the master of the vessel, the navigator, Indian Coast Guard, the Customs Authority etc, the first surveyor stated that the incident of the sinking was an accident that “would have caused” due to an unidentified object hitting the vessel from below.
However as per OP’s investigator’s opinion, an unidentified object could not have been the cause of the accident. The investigator, relying upon cash invoices for maintenance, stated that the vessel was poorly maintained.
Observation of the NCDRC
On submissions being made by the parties and the reports before it, the NCDRC concluded that it does not concede with the opinion of the OP’s investigator. In the words of the NCDRC
“I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case, it is reasonable to say that nobody involved in the sailing of the vessel really knew as to what precisely was the cause of the accident… record reveals they preferred to simply state what they did know which was they did not know . This cannot be held against the complainants.”
Furthermore it was observed that the vessel had all the documents necessary for sailing and there was no reason to believe that it was not sea worthy at the time of sail. It was noted that a poorly maintained vessel could not had led the first surveyor to conclude that the vessel was in fit condition. The vessel would not have been permitted to sail by the relevant authorities.
Thus a direction was passed by the NCDRC to OP to pay an amount of Rs. 1, 75,000,000 with 6% interest.
Case Details
Before: NCDRC
Case Ttitle: Mavji Kanji Jungi v. Oriental Insurance Company
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anup K. Thakur
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
