Insurance Claim Dispute Resolved: Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Prawn Farm Loss
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important judgment in the case of M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.. The ruling addressed an insurance claim dispute related to a mass mortality event in prawn farming due to a bacterial disease outbreak. The Court upheld the appellant’s claim and directed the insurance company to pay compensation along with interest, reaffirming the principles of fairness in insurance settlements.
Background of the Case
The appellant, a registered partnership firm, engaged in prawn farming on 100 acres in Vakapadu Village, Visakhapatnam District. It obtained a ‘Brackish Water Prawn Insurance Policy’ from United India Insurance Company, covering 22,67,000 prawns with an insured value of ₹1.2 crore for a period of five months starting from September 1994. The appellant paid a total premium of ₹2,44,800 along with sales tax of ₹12,240.
However, during the insurance period, a major outbreak of ‘White Spot Disease’ led to the mass mortality of prawns across the region. The appellant filed a claim under the insurance policy, but the insurer rejected the claim, citing alleged policy breaches, including improper record-keeping.
Legal Proceedings
- 1996: The appellant filed a claim with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking ₹75,98,362 plus interest and compensation.
- 2004: The NCDRC ruled in favor of the appellant, awarding ₹17,64,097 with 9% interest.
- 2009: The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the NCDRC for recalculating compensation.
- 2023: The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case again, directed the insurer to pay the balance amount along with 10% interest.
Arguments by the Petitioner (ISNAR Aqua Farms)
The appellant argued:
- The insurance company wrongly rejected the claim despite conducting prior inspections before issuing the policy.
- The mass mortality was due to a covered peril (White Spot Disease), and the claim was legitimate.
- The surveyors appointed by the insurer initially confirmed the loss but later changed their stance without valid reasons.
- The insurance company arbitrarily dismissed the records provided by the appellant.
Arguments by the Respondent (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)
The insurer contended:
- The appellant failed to maintain proper records as required under the policy.
- The loss percentage did not meet the 80% mortality threshold for a claim to be valid.
- The insurance policy’s computation methods showed discrepancies in the claimed loss amount.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court analyzed multiple factors, including survey reports and policy conditions, and made the following key observations:
1. Unjustifiable Repudiation of the Claim
“Insurance coverage was provided after thorough inspection of the appellant’s ponds by senior officers of the insurance company, who were fully satisfied before issuing the policy.”
The Court noted that the insurer had no basis to later claim that proper records were not maintained.
2. Validity of Death Certificate from Government Authorities
“The Death Certificate dated 01.05.1995, issued by the Directorate of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, confirmed the total weight of dead prawns and the cause of death as White Spot Disease.”
The insurer’s refusal to consider this certificate was deemed unjustified.
3. Survey Reports and Contradictory Findings
“While the insurer’s second survey report reduced the estimated loss, the earlier survey had already confirmed total loss, making the latter report questionable.”
The Court held that the insurer’s reliance on inconsistent survey findings was unfair to the claimant.
4. Computation of Compensation
“The insurance policy provided three methods for computing loss: Input Cost Method, Unit Cost Method, and Fortnightly Valuation Method. The appellant’s claim, calculated based on these methods, was accurate.”
The Court determined that the correct payable amount was ₹75,87,750.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
“The sum of ₹45,18,263.20 shall be remitted by the respondent insurance company to the appellant, with simple interest at 10% from the date of the complaint till the date of realization, within six weeks.”
The appeal was thus allowed, ensuring fair compensation for the loss suffered by the appellant.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the principle of fairness in insurance claim settlements. The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ensures that insurance companies cannot arbitrarily deny legitimate claims and must honor their contractual obligations. The judgment serves as a strong precedent for future disputes where insurers attempt to evade liability based on technicalities.
Petitioner Name: M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS.Respondent Name: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD..Judgment By: Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar.Place Of Incident: Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.Judgment Date: 08-08-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ms.-isnar-aqua-farm-vs-united-india-insuran-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-08-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Commercial Insurance Disputes
See all petitions in Insurance Settlements
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Insurance Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
