BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 21st day of December, 2005.
CD No. 108/2005
Dr.K.Naga Ravi Prasad, Shrithe Orthopedic and Maternity clinic,
Gowri Gopal Road, Adoni, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, Adoni.
2. The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Anatapur.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 20.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri V.A.Vinod Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under sections 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.39,500/- with 24 % per annum, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant on 30.5.2003 insured his Computer bearing Identification No. 124424491 for Rs.39,500/- besides to other household articles with opposite party No.1 by paying premium of Rs.3,678/- under House Holders Insurance Policy No. 051005/48/03/00019. On 17.5.2004 the said Computer stopped functioning and the complainant on 18.5.2004 intimated about the accident to opposite party No.1. The opposite party deputed a surveyor M. Eswaraiah to conducted the assessment of loss going through all aspects of damage. Thereafter, even after repeated requests orally and telephonically the opposite parties did not settled the claim.
3. In the last week of October 2004 the opposite party sent a stamped voucher through their staff for Rs. 4,138/- and advised to return the same duly signed but the complainant rejected the said offer. Hence, the non settlement of the claim by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant was constrained to seek redressal in this Forum.
4. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied the following documents Viz (1) Office copy of legal notice addressed by complainant counsel to opposite parties dated 19.11.2004 (2) Three postal receipts dated 27.11.2004 as the receipt of Ex A.1 and (3) Reply notice of opposite party No.2 to complainant’s counsel, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complainant averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party No.2 and caused interrogatories to opposite party No.2.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel, the opposite party No.2 filed its written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
6. The written version of opposite parties question the maintainability of the complainant’s case as not maintainable either in law or on facts, but admits the complainant has taken a House Holders Insurance Police for a period from 30.5.2003 to 29.5.2004 and submits that the complainant informed about the break down of his computer on 17.5.2004 and submitted claim from on 30.6.2004 along with bills issued by Hi-Tech marketing, Kurnool for an amount of Rs.15,800/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties deputed Sri M. Eswaraiah Authorized License Holder to assessment the loss and arrived loss at Rs.11,500/- as against the estimation of Rs. 29,000/- submitted to him by the complainant. It further submits that after verifying the report of surveyor and considering the salvage valuation and policy re in returning statement premium they have arrived at a sum of Rs. 4,138/- as the particular equipment i.e. Computer was covered under section V and not under section VI of House Holder Insurance policy. The claim of the complainant could be taken into consideration only after collecting the full premium as the premium chargeable is higher than what is charged in the present policy as per section 64 V.B of Insurance Act 1938. Accordingly the opposite party charged the difference of premium and penalty as per the standard norms and procedure, hence the question of deficiency on their part does not arises and complainant claiming for Rs. 39,000/- through legal notice dated 19.11.2004 is excessive. Hence, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as the opposite parties settled the claim as per norms and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) Letter dated 29.6.2004 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1 (2) Invoice/ Cash bill (two) dated for Rs.15,800/- issued to the complainant (3) claim form dated 30.6.2004 (4) Insurance Surveyor report of M. Eswaraiah dated 17.6.2004 (5) claim note issued by opposite parties (6) statement intimation voucher for Rs. 4,138/- in favour of complainant and (7) certified copy for insurance policy bearing No. 051005/48/03/0019, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.7 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties suitable replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and caused interrogatories to the complainant.
8. Hence, point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
9. It is the case of the complainant that his computer bearing identification No. 124424491 was insured for Rs. 39,500/- with opposite party No.1 under House Holders Insurance Policy No. 051005/48/03/00019 vide Ex B.7 besides to other house hold articles, on 17.5.2004 the said computer stopped functioning. On the claim preferred by the complainant vide Ex B.3 for Rs.15,000/- the opposite party settled for Rs.4,138/- which the complainant rejected, but the opposite party in their written version averments submits that after receiving intimation from the complainant about the break down of computer they deputed a surveyor to conduct assessment, who assessed the loss to Rs.11,500/- vide Ex B.4 it is further submitted that after verifying surveyors report and considering salvage value and also reinstatement of premium the opposite party has arrived at a sum of Rs.4,138/-, as the particular equipment i.e. computer was covered under section V and not under section VI of the House Holders Insurance Policy, therefore his claim cannot be entertained.
10. The Ex B.5 is the claim note of opposite party, it envisages that as per House Holders Policy, electronic items should be covered under section VI of the policy, where as the Branch Office has covered the said item under section V of the policy. Hence, the difference of premium is collected with three times penalty. In this case complainant has taken the said policy vide Ex B.7 for covering his House hold articles including computer, which the opposite party has accepted by issuing Ex B.7 and renewed the said policy from time to time without any objection. It is for the Branch Office of opposite party to see that the articles covered under the said policy are under proper sections, even though if the complainant has sought their reference in other sections, it is the duty of opposite party to rectify and to see that all the articles are covered under proper sections under the said policy and cannot now take a stand that computer should be covered under Section VI and not under Section V of the said policy. It is gross negligence and carelessness on part of opposite party for allowing such a mistake to be carried in the said policy, and now i.e after the break down occurred and after the claim is made, cannot disown its liability. It is an obligation on part of opposite party to bring it to the notice of the policy holder at the time of issuing the said policy that Computer is not covered under the said policy under section V, had the opposite party informed the complainant any time before the policy is issued about the said mistake he would have taken steps to revive of. This action of opposite party in accepting premium amount for covering all House hold articles and issuing a policy to that effect to the complainant and later stating that Computer is not covered does not stand to reason.
11. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties cannot escape their liability from settling the claim, as they have failed miserablely due to their gross negligence and carelessness in accepting the premium for covering all house hold articles of the complainant and cannot now dis own its liability that Computer is not covered under the said policy of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled for the reliefs sought.
12. The opposite parties in Ex B.5 submitted that the amount assessed by surveyor is Rs.14,150/-, therefore the complainant is entitled to that amount as assessed by surveyor, as the opposite parties driven the complainant to Forum for redressal the complainant is entitled to costs also.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs. 14,150/- with 12% per annum from the date of cause of action till realization along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounce in the open court this the 21st day of December, 2005.
PRESDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Office copy of legal notice, Dt.19-11-2004 addressed by complainant
counsel to opposite parties.
Ex.A2 (3) Postal receipts, Dt.27-11-2004 for Ex.A1.
Ex.A3 Reply notice of opposite party No.2.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Letter, Dt.29-6-2004 by complainant to opposite party No.1(Original)
Ex.B2 Invoice/Cash bills (Two) Dt.24-6-2004 for Rs.15,800/-
Ex.B3 Claims Intimation Form (Notification of loss (or) damage) Dt.30-6-2004
for Rs.15,000/-
Ex.B4 Insurance Survey Report, Dt.17-6-2004
Ex.B5 Claim note.
Ex.B6 Settlement intimation voucher.
Ex.B7 Copy of policy with terms and conditions.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. V.A.Vinod Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
