BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A NO. 228 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.709 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
Prabhu Cloth Stores
Rep. by A. Sanjeeva (Partner)
M.No.4-2-324 to 332, Badichowdi,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad – 500001. …Appellant/ Complainant
AND :
- Senior Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
P.O. Box 11, 302, III Floor, Oasis Plaza,
Tilak Road, Hyderabad – 500001 …Respondent / Opposite Party 1
- Manager In charge,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Service Centre, 6-1-349, Adj. to Naivedyam Hotel,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad – 500025. …Respondent / Opposite Party 2
- Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
6-3-871, ‘Snehalata’, Greenlands Road,
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500001. …Respondent / Opposite Party 3
- Chairman –cum- Managing Director
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Oriental House’, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi – 11002. …Respondent / Opposite Party 4
Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant : Sri K.S.N. SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/ opposite parties : Sri M.Ramgopal Reddy
F.A NO. 1200 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.709 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
- Senior Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
P.O. Box 11, 302, III Floor, Oasis Plaza,
Tilak Road, Hyderabad – 500001
- Manager In charge,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Service Centre, 6-1-349, Adj. to Naivedyam Hotel,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad – 500025.
- Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
6-3-871, ‘Snehalata’, Greenlands Road,
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500001.
Chairman –cum- Managing Director
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Oriental House’, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi – 11002. …Appellants/ Opposite parties
AND :
Prabhu Cloth Stores
Rep. by A. Sanjeeva (Partner)
M.No.4-2-324 to 332, Badichowdi,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad – 500001. …Respondent / Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant : Sri K.S.N. SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/ opposite parties : Sri M.Ramgopal Reddy
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Twenty Second day of December
Two thousand Sixteen
C O M M O N O R D E R
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
M/s. Prabhu Cloth Stores, Badichowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, is engaged in cloth business. It had obtained a Burglary Insurance Policy for the period from 21.03.2011 to 20.03.2012 from the opposite parties Insurance Company. On the intervening night of 13/14.10.2011 an untoward incident of burglary took place in the shop causing a loss of stocks worth Rs.4,89,895/- and a cash of Rs.60,000/-totaling to Rs.5,49,895/-. When the Managing Partner of the cloth stores preferred a claim with the Insurance Company, a Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed on 17.10.2011 and on due investigation he submitted the report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.4,89,895/-, but after deducting 50.54% of it, recommended to settle the claim at Rs.4,42,743/- only. When the Insurance Company offered the said sum, the complainant has shown his willingness to accept it but only under protest on the premise that he was entitled for the entire claim amount. When this dispute could not be resolved, he approached the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad [in short, the ‘District Forum’] by way of filing C.C.no.709/2012 claiming the total amount of Rs.4,89,895/- with interest thereon, compensation and costs. During the pendency of the said case, on the directions of the District Forum, the Insurance Company, made a deposit of an undisputed amount of Rs.2,42,743/- and the same was paid to the complainant.
2. The learned District Forum, by the order dated 28.10.2013, partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the balance claim amount of Rs.2,47,152/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is challenged by the complainant by way of preferring F.A.no.228/2014 and the opposite parties have also preferred a cross appeal in F.A.no.1200/2013.
3. The contention of the complainant, in F.A.no.228/2014, in brief, is that the District Forum has ignored the policy coverage of Rs.40 crores but under mistaken notion took it as Rs.40 Lakhs only as the officials of the Insurance Company have caused material alteration in the document of the policy by changing the figures to Rs.40 Lakhs to suit their defence, after receiving it from the complainant. Further, the District Forum has failed to grant any interest and compensation to him on the claim amount.
- Per contra, the Insurance Company has contended, interalia, in F.A.no.1200/2013 that the policy was renewed from 21.03.2011 to 20.03.2012 as per which the property insured shall at the time of any loss or damage be collectively of greater value than the sum assured thereon then the insured shall be considered as being his own insurer for the differences and shall bear a retable proportion of the loss or damage accordingly. Infact, though the stock of the complainant, as per provisional balance sheet of his Chartered Accountant was of Rs.80,71,651/-, he took the policy only for Rs.40 Lakhs by under insuring to an extent of 50.54%, to avoid payment of the premium. Thus, he has deprived the Insurance Company for the balance of Rs.41,71,000/- in collecting the premium amount in accordance with law. In this circumstance, the surveyor has rightly assessed the loss to an extent of 50.54 %. But the District Forum did not consider this aspect and based the findings on technical aspects wrongly.
- Perused the impugned order, material evidence placed on record, written arguments of the parties and heard both the learned counsel.
6. Now the point for consideration is that:-
Whether the impugned order is erroneous and against the facts and law and that as such liable to be set aside ?
7.Point:- The only controversy revolving in the matter is about the terms of the Insurance Policy and the Surveyor’s report. As per the complainant the Insurance Policy was for a sum of Rs.40 Crores but the Insurance Company gives it to Rs.40 Lakhs. The complainant has filed a copy of the Insurance Policy, Ex.A1 in which the policy’s sum has been shown as Rs.40 Crores and that as such he propounds that after surrender of the original policy document along with the insurance Company officials made material alterations in it and filed a copy of the same, Ex.B2 showing the sum assured as Rs.40 Lakhs only. In Ex.B2 the words Rs.40 Crores are corrected to Rs.40 Lakhs. Be that as it may we need not go in to this controversy because the original policy document is not placed on record. Moreover as per the statement of the stock lost, Ex.A4 the stock was of Rs.4,89,895/-. The Surveyor has noted in his report, Ex.A6 that as per provisional balance sheet provided by the complainant’s Chartered Accountant, the closing stock as on the date of loss i.e., 13.10.2011 was of Rs.80,71,651/-. Basing on the said balance sheet the Surveyor has noted that as the policy was only of Rs.40 Lakhs, the complainant was entitled for the amount by deducting 50.54% of the total loss of the stock. But it is to be noted that the said balance sheet also finds no place in the record. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for us to delve into the actual aspect of the quantum of sum assured under the policy document. It is only to be seen that the value of the stock lost is less than the assured policy amount. The loss of cash of Rs.60,000/- was also not covered under the policy. The investigating agency i.e., the police, could not trace the lost property on the complaint of the complainant. By taking into consideration of all these facts and circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled for the sum of Rs.4,89,895/- which is the actual value of the stock lost. It is to be noted that, he has already received a sum of Rs.2,42,743/- during the pendency of the C.C.no.709/2012 as per the order passed by the District Forum in I.A.no.96/2013 on 01.04.2013. Therefore, he is entitled only for the balance amount of Rs.2,47,152/-. In this regard the learned District Forum, in our considered view, has rightly appreciated the evidence placed on record and came to the conclusion with sound and convincing reasoning. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said findings. But at the same time it is to be noted that the complainant has put-forth his claim on14.10.2011 before the Insurance Company and it took quite long time to realize part of it by leaving the remaining balance. Therefore, the learned District Forum ought to have awarded a reasonable interest on it by way of compensation and also adequate costs of the litigation. We deem it just, necessary and expedient to correct this anomaly by granting a reasonable compensation, inclusive of interest on the claim amount and the same is accordingly settled at Rs.15,000/- to meet the ends of justice. The impugned order thus needs modification to this extent by leaving rest of the findings undisturbed.
- The point is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
- In the result, F.A.no.228/2014 is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,47,152/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest @ 12% till the date of realization. Consequently F.A.no.1200/2013 is dismissed.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt.22.12.2016
