Unlucky travellers who missed two cruise ship departures due to mechanical issues and then a broken bone have won a claim dispute with their insurer.

The couple were due to board on August 25 last year, but one month prior the woman broke one ankle and sprained the other, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority heard.

That October, their insurer Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance accepted part of their holiday cancellation claim, paying out $23,876.

But it refused to cover $20,790 of the couple’s spending on the trip, noting the cruise was booked using a credit voucher they received after an earlier cancellation due to mechanical problems and bad weather. It said this meant the claimants did not incur a monetary loss on that portion.

Tokio Marine said the credit voucher was provided as compensation for disruption to the previous cruise, and cancellation of the second cruise resulted in forfeiture of the voucher.

Further, it argued its policy did not cover consequential loss of any kind.

But the couple said use of the voucher and its acceptance indicated it had value to both holder and issuer, and it represented a pre-paid sum for the cruise.

Related article: AFCA backs insurer after flood payout fuels family feud

AFCA says it is unfair to refuse to pay the value of the voucher, because an insured event occurred.

The voucher is no longer valid, and the claimed loss is not recoverable from another source, it finds.

AFCA notes the insurer said the voucher had no monetary value because it was complimentary, but the authority finds it did have value when used to pre-pay for the trip.

“There is no information provided to show the travel provider reinstated the voucher, refunded its value or otherwise made that amount available for future use,” an ombudsman said.

“In the absence of such information, I am satisfied the complainants suffered a financial loss equivalent to the value applied to the booking, and this loss falls within the policy cover for non-refundable pre-paid expenses that could not reasonably be recovered.”

See the ruling here.