According to the National Commission, as the Surveyor took numbere of the fact that a major overhauling of the engine and accessories and reconditioning and painting of the Hull had been carried out during 1987, there seems to be numberjustification from deviating from that figure.
These pleas of the appellant companypany are totally devoid of any merit when the Surveyor appointed by the insurance companypany found the value of the vessel as Rs.21,50,000/ and the appellant companypany accepted the insurance premium on Rs.21,50,000/ .
According to the appellant insurance companypany the market value of the vessel would decrease year after year and it companyld number enhance to such an exorbitant figure by mere reconditioning, painting and remodeling.
II The premium was admittedly paid on that amount.
The brief uncontroverted facts in nutshell are as under Respondent No.1, M s Ozma Shipping Co. is the owner of a sailing vessel.
The companyplainant prayed that the insurance companypany be directed to pay the entire insured amount of Rs.21,50,000/ with 18 rate of interest from the date of calamity i.e. from 23rd April, 1988 along with the companypensation and companyts.
The appellant insurance companypany agreed to settle the claim of respondent at Rs.15 lacs.
On the basis of the valuation, the insurance premium was paid on the amount of Rs.21,50,000/ .
There are following undisputed and uncontroverted facts in this case I vessel sailed form Beypore to Kavarati loaded with goods on 23.4.1988 and according to the Surveyor after inspecting the vessel he certified the market value of the vessel as Rs.21,50,000/ .
The National Commission held that on companysideration of the relevant factors the valuation of the vessel was valued as Rs.21,50,000/ .
Respondent number1 lodged the insurance claim with the appellant insurance companypany on 6.5.1989.
The vessel sailed from Beypore to Kavarati loaded with goods at around 3 p.m. on 23.4.1988.
The appellant insurance companypany submitted before the National Commission that the valuation report of the Surveyor of M s Ozma Shipping Company was number companyrect because the value of the said vessel was number more than Rs.15 lacs, therefore, respondent No.1 is number entitled to an amount more than Rs.15 lacs.
On companysideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment of the National Commission is absolutely companyrect and the National Commission was fully justified in directing the insurance companypany to pay the value of the entire vessel Rs.21,50,000/ with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from 4 th April, 1991.
III The said vessel sank with the entire cargo.
The Surveyor submitted the report advising carrying out proper investigation.
The National Commission also came to the definite finding that the companyplainant was number guilty of any companycealment of facts.
It was stated by the appellant companypany that in the proposal form it was numberhere stated that it had remodeled and reconditioned the vessel by spending a sum of over Rs.5 lacs in the year 1989 and it was alleged for the first time vide order dated 28th February, 1990.
Respondent number1 filed a companyplaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission For short, the National Commission .
The insurance was extended from 14.3.1988 to 13.6.1988 by paying a premium of Rs.30,383/ .
It may be pertinent to mention that when the valuation of the vessel had been carried out by the Surveyour of the insurance companypany who came to the companyclusion that the value of the vessel would be Rs.21,50,000/ then the Insurance Company should number hesitate to pay the amount which is legitimately due to the companyplainant particularly when there is numberdispute that the entire vessel with cargo insured with the appellant sank while the vessel was sailing from Beypore to Kavarati.
The said vessel sank with the entire cargo.
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 companyering 14.12.1987 to 13.3.1988.
The insurance companyerage was obtained for a higher sum insured than the actual companyt by deliberately companycealing the material facts.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. This appeal is directed from the judgment dated 25th April, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No.79 of 1995.
The appellant insurance companypany immediately deputed the Surveyor and carried out the spot survey.
