ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length.
2. In this matter, the appellant filed a complaint against the allegedly wrong repudiation of the claim by the respondent/ Insurance Company.
3. In brief facts are mentioned hereinafter. The complainant had a fishing boat Registration No. FKKD 639 insured with the respondent/ Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 on 30.8.2996. The complainant in routine course sent the boat along with other boats from Kakinada Port on a fishing voyage in the early hours on 3.11.1996. While the boat was conducting fishing operation in 15 fathoms depth in Rameshwaram sea the weather suddenly changed with overcast sky followed by squally winds coupled with scattered rain at 1 p.m. Fishing operation was suspended. Owing to heavy swell of furious waves the boat was being affected with rolling and pitching movements. It reached Neelarevu area at about 7 p.m. on 6.11.1996. The unprecedented uneven gusty gales prevailed all of a sudden as a result of which the engine of the boat ceased to run and the boat was drifted away in the tidal wave and ultimately grounded on the shore and tilted to one side. The crew dismounted the boat. It is claimed that in that process the engine and gear box were lost. The Port Officer was informed. The Surveyor visited the spot and under the supervision of the Insurance surveyor, the broken planks of the hull and damaged engine and other machinery were salvaged. It was fully financed by the Canara Bank. The Canara Bank received a letter from the Insurance Company that the complainant’s claim was approved. But it was not followed by any action. On 4.11.1998 the complainant received a letter indicating that the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Ultimately, the complainant was led to file the complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 with interest (c) 18% p.a.
4. The opposite party had contended that the matter was entrusted to M/s. IMSACO to investigate into the alleged loss of the boat though it was not disputed that the Surveyor M/s. J. B. Boda had recommended for payment on constructive total loss basis. It was noticed that there was another claim by one Oleti Venkateswarlu for sinking of his vessel FKKD 622. On 12.6.1996, due to collision with the fishing boat FKKD 639 it was suspected that the Engine Number allotted to FKKD 622 was 1051 and for FKKD 639 was 041. The difference between 639 and 622 was 17 whereas the engine numbers differs by 10. It was doubtful. The surveyors reached the conclusion that there was only one boat and there was no existence of two boats. Further the insured continued to supply catch to M/s. Sankar Marine Food Ltd. Visakhapatnam. All this lead to the repudiation of the claim.
5. Parties lead evidence from the side. The State Commission accepted the complaint partly and directed the opposite party/ Insurance Company to pay Rs. 30,000.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.
7. During the investigation, it was noticed that Capt. Jacob Rao, principal Surveyor had stated that regarding the claim of loss of FKKD 622 while they were enquiring it was noticed that FKKD 639 was registered in August when FKKD 622 in November, 1993 which could not be corrected for in the normal course of things registered numbers would be allotted in serial number. Further, FKKD 622 and 639 boats were identical in size, etc. The diesel bills produced during March to May 1994 were also not found genuine. Therefore, they doubted that for the loss of one boat two claims were made. The investigation report filed by Capt. Jacob Rao marked Ex. B2 dated 23.1.1998 as well as the report of Murray Fenton(India) Surveyors Ltd. Visakhapatnam indicated that Voleti Venkateswarlu was a close relative of the complainant herein Voleti Venkateswrlu owner of FKKD 622 filed CD No. 20/1997 alleging sinking of his vessel due to collision with fishing boat FKKD 639. The said complaint of Voleti Venkateswarlu was dismissed, Ex. B3. The said collision took place on 12.6.1994 as per judgment in CD. No. 20/1997. Accordingly Ex. B2 has no relevance. It was also noticed by the State Commission that there was only one boat. The insured appellant continued to supply catch to M/s. Sankar Marine Foods Ltd., Visakhapatnam even after the sinking of the boat.
8. In these circumstances suspecting some foul play the respondent repudiated the claim based after due inquiry. Since a compensation of Rs. 30,000 has been awarded to the complainant with interest(r) 9% from the date of filing of the complaint we think that it is not a fit case where this Commission should interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.