LexORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus M/S OZMA SHIPPING COMPANY & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 573 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A V. MIS OZMA SHIPPING COMPANY & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 6289 of 2001) AUGUST 25, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Marine Insurance Act, 1963: ss.29, 69 - Entire vessel with cargo insured for a sum, after due valuation by surveyor 8 of insurance company - Premium demanded paid by C insured - Vessel sank with the cargo - Liability of insurance company - Held: Insurance company has to pay entire insured sum - Attitude of insurance company of avoiding bona fide claim needs to be curbed - Insurance. Respondent no.1 was the owner of a sailing vessel. D The surveyor appointed 6y appellant-Insurance Company inspected the vessel and certified that market value of vessel was Rs.21.50 lacs. The premium amount was accordingly fixed by insurance company and paid E by the respondent 1. The vessel sailed loaded with goods on 23.4.1988 and sank with entire cargo. Respondent 1 lodged insurance claim. Insurance company agreed to settle the claim for Rs.15 lacs. Respondent 1 filed complaint before the National F Commission. National Commission directed the insurance company to pay value of entire vessel Rs.21.50 lacs with @ 12% p.a. from 4th April, 1991. Hence appeal by insurance company. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When the valuation of the vessel was carried out by the Surveyor of the insurance company 573 G H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A who came to the conclusion that the value of the vessel would be Rs.21.50 lacs then the Insurance Company ' ..... should not hesitate to pay the amount which was legitimately due to the complainant particularly when there was no dispute that the entire vessel with cargo B insured with the appellant sank while the vessel was sailing. (Paras 15] (578-E] 2. The insurance companies in genuine and bona fide claims of the insurerd should not adopt the attitude c of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other. This attitude puts a serious question mark on credibility and trustworthiness of the insurance companies. Incidentally by adopting honest approach and attitude the insurance companies would be able to save enormous litigation D costs and the interest liability. The tendency of approaching th~ Apex Court in every such case also needs to be effectively curbed. [Paras 17 and 18] (579-B- C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 6289-of 2001. · From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2001 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Original Petition No. 79 of 1995. F P. Seth, Manjeet Chawla (for Sudhir Kumar Gupta) for the Appellant. Girish Ananthamoorthy (for P.P. Singh), Praveen Gautam (for Pramod B. Agarwala) for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed from ~ .. the judgment dated 25th April, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in H Original Petition No. 79 of 1995. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. OZMA 575 SHIPPING COMPANY & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 2. The brief uncontroverted facts in nutshell are as under:- A ~ ) Respondent No.1, Mis Ozma Shipping Co. is the owner of a sailing vessel. The same was insured on 14.12.1987 for a sum of Rs.21,50,000/-. A total premium of Rs.40,832.50 was paid for the period covering 14.12.1987 to 13.3.1988. The B insurance was extended from 14.3.1988 to 13.6.1988 by paying a premium of Rs.30,383/-. .f 3. It may be pertinent to mention that before issuing the policy the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company thoroughly inspected the vessel and issued a c valuation certificate. The Surveyor after inspecting the vessel certified that the market value of the vessel was Rs. 21,50,000/ -. The Surveyor gave a very comprehensive report and took note of the fact that a major over-hauling of the engine and accessories and reconditioning and painting of the Hull had D -4. been carried out during 1987. It may be pertinent to mention that the Surveyor had considered all relevant factors in its report. 4. Sections 29 and 68 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 E are relevant in connection with the present controversy involved in this case. It would be appropriate to set out both these sections:- -f "29. Valued Policy:- (1) A policy may be either valued or unvalued. F (2) A valued policy is a policy !Afhi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.