Law: Marine Insurance Act, 2018

Section: 2(D), / 130,122,118

Law: Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Section:

(a) Marine Insurance Act (V of 2018)---

----S. 2(D)---Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S.18---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 130, 122 & 118---Marine Insurance contract---Insurance matters---Principle of indemnity and doctrine of "subrogation"---Insurance claim after availing loss---Maintainability---Question was whether or not , the petitioner /insured after receiving the compensation of the loss occurred from the shipping company, was entitled to insurance claim---Held, that Marine Insurance has been defined in S. 2(D) of the Marine Insurance Act, 2018, as "Marine Insurance means a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured in manner and to the extent thereby agreed against marine loses that is to say, the loses incidental to marine adventure"---In insurance matters, the principle of indemnity is the cardinal principle and the doctrine of the "subrogation " is relevant---For "subrogation" it is said that the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the insured and not to a contribution from other insurers where he has paid the whole of the loss or more than his proportionate share of it---Insured is entitled to a sum that would practically restore it to the same financial condition as before the damage---Insurance company can recover the amount paid to the insured as it has already compensated the insured---Insurance contract, particularly Marine Insurance Contract, is always a contract of indemnity and indemnity alone and the only purpose is to return the insured to the same position as he was prior to the loss---Principle of indemnity in insurance contract does not permit double compensation and particularly a marine insurance is a contract of personal indemnity and not a contract from which profit can be realized---Even otherwise the insurance loss is the financial damage one suffers due to insurable event and if the same is compensated, the insured is not entitled to ask for the double benefit---In the present case, admittedly, the insured (petitioner) had already been compensated by the shipping company (respondent), and had received $35,000 way back i.e. after about two and half months of filing of complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman---Said compensation of the loss to the petitioner was paid on the written request of the petitioner, which was made about four months before filing said complaint---Therefore, the petitioner who had already been compensated is not entitled to ask for insurance claim, keeping in view the principle of indemnity and doctrine of "subrogation"---Even, the complaint/grievance petition before the Federal Insurance Ombudsman filed by the petitioner was dismissed on account of payment/compensation already having been made to the complainant---Insurance petition was dismissed on ground of principle of indemnity.

Castellain v. Preston and others (1881-85) All Er Rep 493; AIR 1997 SC 2871; Mission National Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Lowell M. Schulman, Schulman Investment Company, and United Organics Corporation, Defendants 659 F. Supp 270 (1986) and Burnand v. Rodocanachi (2) (7App Cas at p 330) ref.