BALASADI KANAKARAO vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE complainant, the owner of a boat bearing registration No. FKKD 410 got it insured originally on 9.7.1992 but renewed the policy from time-to-time. While the policy was in force, the boat sailed out for fishing operations along with the crew from Kakinada Yetimoga Canal Jetty at about 4.00 a.m. on 30.3.1993 towards Kakinada anchorage area. THE boat conducted its operations between Uppada and Gunta area in 30 fathoms depth smoothly upto evening of 30.3.1993. THE complainant noticed at about 4.00 p.m. on 30.3.1993 that a portion of the boat was getting down and it was moving by taking jolts. THE luscars checked inside the boat and found that the inner compartments were fully choked with water. THEy resorted to bailing out water with hand pumps and buckets, but the water level was increasing gradually. THE luscar who checked the stern tube bolts found they had fallen in the force compartment of stern tube plange. Immediately the complainant got into the boat and examined the stern tube plange. He noticed that the stern tube had broken adjacent to the stern tube plange. Hence the complainant instructed the luscars to heave up the net on board so as to save the boat and their lives. As water entered into the engine, the boat came to a halt. As the water level was increasing and reached the deck level, the crew jumped into the sea with life jackets, life bouys and jerry cans. THE boat capsized. After swimming for some time, the complainant and the crew noticed one engine Nava which was going into the deep sea for fishing. Noticing the signals made by them, the said Nava came and rescued them and dismounted them near Dummulapetta Coast of Kakinada. THE complainant intimated the mishap to all concerned telegraphically on 31.3.1993. M/s. Superintendence Co. of India Ltd., Kakinada were appointed by the opposite party. Though search operations were conducted to trace the boat under the supervision of Insurance Surveyor with the help of salvers and boat FKKD 474 and 374 from 1.4.1993 to 3.4.1993 the sunken boat could not be traced. Though the complainant submitted a claim application but without any response. THE opposite party was only putting forth an excuse that the survey report was not yet received. Finally to the utter dismay of the complainant, the opposite party sent a letter dated 18.3.1997 repudiating the claim. Hence the complaint.

IN the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that on receipt of information through telegram on 30.3.1993 they appointed Superintendence Co. of INdia Ltd., Surveyors to investigate about the validity of the claim. It also appointed Ranjit Singh Seehara as a Surveyor to look into the genuineness of the claim. But the Surveyors after thorough investigation submitted their report on 20.9.1996 and 21.8.1995 respectively stating that the claim is fraudulent. The weather conditions were not conducive as the sky was cloudy accompanied by thunder storms and lightning till the night of 29.3.1993. Hence there was no scope for sailing into the sea in the early hours of 30.3.1993. Hence the story that the complainant had noticed entering of water in the inner compartment of the boat, falling of stern tube bolts, breakage of stern tube, sinking of the boat, jumping of the crew into the sea, rescued by a Nava are all concocted. If the boat is properly maintained the breakage of stern tube or dropping of screws would not arise causing increase of water. Even assuming that there was such possibility, the shore was only 10 to 12 miles from the alleged place of accident and as such water can be removed by hand pump and engine suction and reach the shore within a couple of hours as rightly observed by the Surveyors. The Surveyors have highlighted the inconsistent and contradictory statements made by the crew and came to the conclusion that the alleged loss was not genuine. Hence the opposite party on a consideration of the entire material came to the conclusion that the claim has to be repudiated. The complainant besides filing his affidavit filed the affidavit of one luscar by name Dokkadi Yesuratnam. He also filed Exs. A-1 to A-18. The opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of Asstt. Divisional Manager in the Divisional Office at Hyderabad who previously worked in the Divisional Office at Kakinada and marked Exs. B-1 to B-3. The point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of boat FKKD 410. It is also not disputed that the said boat was insured and the policy was issued for Rs. 6 lakhs and it was in force on 30.3.1993. But the opposite party does not admit the alleged sinking of the boat. Hence the question is whether the complainant is able to establish the mishap of the boat on 30.3.1993 while it was conducting fishing operations at Uppada and Gunta area near Kakinada.

THE crucial documents are the survey report of Mr. Ranjeet Singh Seehara, and the survey report of Superintendence Co. of India Ltd., Exs. B-1 and B-3 respectively. In Ex. B-1 the Surveyor observed that even on his repeated requests, the insured did not produce the crew members of FKKD 410 for interrogation to find out the genuineness of the accident. His discrete inquiries made at the fishing jetty regarding the mishap of boat FKKD 410 revealed that none of them confirmed about the mishap. THErefore, he concluded that the boat FKKD 410 has not ventured on fishing operations from Kakinada jetty on 30.3.1993. In the survey report Ex. B-3 the Superintendence Co. of India Ltd. Surveyors also observed that in a 12-hour period the screw bolts had all found fallen in the boat''s bottom shows that the stern block was so rotten which in turn shows inadequate maintenance. The clearance between stern tube body and stern block is hardly 1 mm. Therefore, even if the stern tube breaks the water inflow is very low. Even if the ingress was there the effect of bailing out, hand pumping and engine suction could easily see through the boat to ground at nearest shore point and there was no possibility of sinking as the distance can be covered in less than two hours. The statements of the members of the crew are prevaricating. The debris of the sunken boat said to have been found by the crew did not see the light of the day. Fell off screw bolts to rotten wood of stern block speaks of maintenance deficiency. Not leaving any marking buoy at the accident spot and not being able to identify the location is another improbability. Though it is admitted that the complainant was purchasing diesel from two bunks M/s. Sree Veeraprabha Filling Station and M/s. D.R.K. Bunk, he produced bills from only one bunk and the bills from M/s. D.R.K. Bunk were not submitted for which no explanation was forthcoming. It is observed from the notary statements that they have purchased and filled the oil into the boat on 25.3.1993 as usual but not sailed for fishing operations on that day but only started on 30.3.1993, whereas cash record/purchase statement shows the prawn catches on 25.3.1993. Hence the sailing of the boat on 30.3.1993 without oil is a matter which throws any amount of doubt on this voyage. That apart no traces of the sunken boat are recovered. There is no evidence of any wooden planks or empty cans washed away to the shore fortifying the story of a grounding of the boat. The rescuing of the crew members by one engine Nava from the same spot while they were shouting for rescue does not also appear probable particularly when all the crew members are lifted hale and healthy unhurt even though they were swimming for more than two hours. All these circumstances point out the story of the complainant more improbable than probable. Under these circumstances, the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim. We cannot brand it as arbitrary or baseless.

FOR these reasons, the complaint fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Complaint dismissed.