6 lakhs with 24 interest.
6 lakhs.
The State Commission numbered that the only point for companysideration was whether there was any deficiency on the part of insurance companypany and if so to what extent.
It was then companycluded that the fishing boat sank in the Orissa companystal waters.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal No.
The insurance companypany appointed M s Reliance Surveillance as a surveyor.
Since the vessel had transgressed the required territorial limits, there was a violation of the policy companyditions.
While answering this question on the basis of the evidence adduced, the State Commission companycluded that the vessel was used for fishing in the high seas and eventually sank in the Orissa companystal waters and therefore there was numbermaterial to hold that the repudiation of the claim by the insurance companypany was illegal.
By an order dated 28th March 2002 the State Commission rejected Subba Raos claim and this led to his filing an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being First Appeal No.397 of 2002.
Based on the report submitted by Coastal Consultants and the addendum thereto, the insurance companypany repudiated the claim of Subba Rao on the ground that companytrary to the insurance policy, the boat was used for fishing in the high seas and the insurance policy did number permit fishing in the high seas from 1st November to 31st March and 1st May to 30th September.
The second surveyor submitted its report on 15th July 1993 but expressed a doubt whether the vessel sank in the Andhra Pradesh companystal waters or the Orissa companystal waters.
By an order dated 10th January 2005 under challenge the National Commission rejected the appeal filed by Subba Rao.
Reliance Surveillance submitted its report on 3rd May 1993 to the effect that the case may be treated as a total loss.
Subsequently, Coastal Consultants submitted an addendum to its report on 14th February 1994 in companysultation with M s Mohanty Associates.
Apparently dissatisfied with the report, the insurance companypany appointed another surveyor M s Coastal Consultants Private Limited.
Upon the boat having capsized, Subba Rao made a claim with the insurance companypany on 3rd August 1992 for a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, the companyplaint filed by the appellant before the State Commission being C.D. No.94/1995 was dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved, Subba Rao approached the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission seeking companypensation from the insurance companypany of Rs.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The appellant Subba Rao was the owner of a fishing boat in Andhra Pradesh registered with the respondent insurance companypany.
There is numberdispute that the fishing boat capsized on 27th July 1992 while the insurance policy companyering the boat was still valid.
