IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 70 of 2006(B) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32727/2005 Dated 24/11/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- S.SAHAYARAJ, VIII/110-T, THOMAS STREET, KADIYA PATNAM P.O. KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. THE NEW INSURANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, EDATHIL BUILDING, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INSURANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHIL TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 011. 3. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN (KOCHI), RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 70 of 2006 B --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J: The appellant/petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order wherein the Insurance Ombudsman declined to grant any compensation for the alleged loss of the fishing vessel by the appellant. The appellant's case is that the fishing vessel 'M.F.V. Matha', ALP 2655 was hit by an unknown vessel in the sea of the Alappuzha Coast at 3.30 a.m on 10.9.2003 and consequently, the vessel sank. According to the appellant, while the vessel, which hit the appellant's vessel, escaped and the whereabouts of the said vessel were not known to him or could not be found out, another vessel saved the crew who were floating in the water. Based on the claim of the appellant, W.A. NO.70 of 2006 :-2-: the Insurance Company ordered investigation. A copy of the report is produced by the Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Even though contradictions were found in the statement given by the employees about the accident, the Insurance Company still entertained the application for compensation, but declined compensation for the reason that the fishing licence of the vessel had expired on 31.8.2003 and the accident happened on 10.9.2003. Even though counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was only delay in renewal of licence, we do not find fault with the decision of the Insurance Company confirmed by the Ombudsman because unless the policy is valid, the Insurance Company is not bound to grant compensation because, according to the Insurance Policy, in order to entitle the insurer for compensation, the vessel should have licence which W.A. NO.70 of 2006 :-3-: will be issued only after assessing the fitness. However, since the genuineness of the accident and the loss of vessel are not doubted by the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman should have considered the appellant's claim for ex-gratia payment under Rule 18 of the Insurance Ombudsman The Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998. In the normal course, we should remand the matter for reconsideration of the appellant's entitlement for ex-gratia payment. However, since the accident took place six years back, we do not think it fit to remand the matter at this distance of time. We, therefore, grant ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay it within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. W.A. NO.70 of 2006 :-4-: The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. sd/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ -true copy- P.S.TO JUDGE. W.A. NO.70 of 2006 :-5-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T W.A. NO.70 of 2006 :-6-: DATED: -9-2009