It obtained insurance coverage from the respondent Insurance Company for a period of five months from 7-10.09.1994 in relation to all the 37 ponds in its operation, covering 22,67,000 prawns, for a maximum insured value of. The policy provided that the insurance period would be split up into fortnights and each calendar month was to be treated as two fortnights, irrespective of the number of days in the month.
By common order dated 29.04.2004, the NCDRC disposed of the appellant’s Original Petition
No 55 of 1996 along with Original Petition The NCDRC therefore opined that it was totally unreasonable on the part of the insurance company to allege that the appellant was not maintaining proper records on 2-3.12.1994. By order dated 10.11.2009, this Court disposed of the appeals, opining that the NCDRC had not calculated the compensation properly, including the interest to be paid to the claimants.
Nageswara Rao, the NCDRC noted that several conclusions/remarks made therein were in the nature of value judgments/surmises, which were not supported by the evidence on record or even the contents of the 4 report itself. Having stated so, the NCDRC surprisingly accepted the estimation of the average body weight of each prawn by these surveyors at 9.086 grams and their valuation of the total loss, based thereon, as .30,69,486.80. The following values of loss were worked out by the appellant: Input Cost Method – .75,98,361/-;
Unit Cost Method – .75,87,750/-; and Fortnightly Valuation Method – .79,20,000/-.
Frank & Fair Investigators had estimated the average body weight of the dead prawns/salvaged prawns to be between 10 grams to 12 grams each.
This estimation is fortified by the Death Certificate dated 01.05.1995 issued by the Directorate of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam, which confirmed that the average weight of each prawn at the time of death/loss would have been 17.78 grams.
Reference was made by the insurance company to its letter dated 17.04.1995 addressed to the appellant, wherein it had pointed out that it was clearly mentioned in the claim form that the death certificate must be signed either by the MPEDA authorities or by the State Fisheries Department and called upon the appellant to obtain the certificate from either of the authorities and submit it to the company for further action. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2000) 2 SCC 734], that it is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties; that good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the party knows; and that the insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally. Applying this standard presently, it may be noted that despite the second surveyors report dated 22.09.1995 quantifying the appellant’s loss at .17,64,097/-, the respondent insurance company chose to repudiate the appellant’s claim in its entirety, basing on the wholly unfounded assertion that the appellant had failed to maintain and provide proper records. In effect, the action of the insurance company in refusing to act upon the Death Certificate dated 01.05.1995 issued by the Directorate of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam, cannot be countenanced.
As the respondent company would have already 9 paid the appellant the amount quantified by the NCDRC in the impugned order, viz., .30,69,486.80, the appellant would be entitled to receive the balance amount of.45,18,263.20. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Case Title: M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2023 INSC 680)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001077-001077 / 2013
