BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Monday the 1^st day of August, 2011

C.C.No 155/2010

BETWEEN:

Siddartha Medical & Surgical agencies, Represented by its proprietor

M.Jagan Mohen Reddy, D.No.52/18A, Old Bus Stand, Kurnool.        

                           …Complainant

                                         -Vs-

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,

D.No.40/343 - A, 1^st Floor,Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool - 518 001. 

1. The Divisional Manager,National Insurance Company Limited,   

        D.No.11-69, 1^st Floor,Subhash Road, Anantapur - 515 001.       

                …Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri K.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.A.Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

            ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)

    CC. No. 155/2010

1.     This case is filed by the complainant under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 requesting an order on opposite parties for the payment of:-

(a)    Rs.3,60,000/- towards  the loss for the damaged stock of Medicines with 18% P.A. interest from the date of claim to the date of realization;          

(b)    Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony;   

1. Rs.10,000/- as cost of the case.

2.     The summary of complainant case is that his medical agencies under the name and style Sidhartha Medical and surgical agencies at Old Bus Stand in D.No.52/18 - A, Kurnool was insured with opposite party under the policy No.551001/11/09/3100000126 for Rs.14,00,000/- by paying premium of Rs.2,860/- covering the risk for period from 23-07-2009 to 22-07-2010.  Unfortunately his shop was adversely affected in the devastating flood on 02-10-2009 and he suffered huge loss of Rs.3,60,000/- due to inundation of stock medicines.  Thereafter he intimated to opposite party No.1 on 05-10-2009 addressing a letter, requesting to assess the loss.  Persuant to the request of the complainant M.Srinivasa Rao, surveyor assessed the loss under the instructions of opposite party No.1.  Despite the submission of claim from with relevant documents and surveyor’s report, opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant by citing the reasons that flood water has not risen to the level of complainant’s business area and the loss of stock of medicine is not due to flood and inundation.  The complainant avered that his claim was disregarded with malafied intention.  Hence the negligent and indifferent attitude of opposite party No.1 in settling the claim amounts to deficiency of service.  On account of apathetic attitude of opposite parties, this case was filed before the Forum seeking appropriate reliefs.

3.     Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 and A2 are filed by the complainant to support of his case.

4.     In Persuance to the notice of this Forum opposite party No.1 filed a written version denying his liability to the complainant’s claim.  Opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of Opposite party No.1 by filing a memo.  Briefly the Opposite parties case is that the surveyor’s report prepared under the instructions of opposite partyNo.1 submits that the building is old, constructed with masonary walls and covered with line mater  supported by wooden refers.  The building premises includes a show room, stock room and a small open area.  On 02-10-2009 there were two chances for water to enter into the business premises.  One way is rain water directly falling into the showroom through the gaps of ventilators, and another is stagnated water in the open area due to the block of outlets, entering through the gaps of shutter.  This fact was also accepted by the insured at the time of inspection.  Therefore the inundation of stock is not due to the entry of flood water into the business premises, but due to the entry of water on account of down pore of rain.  So the claim of complainant does not fall with in the preview of the policy.  From what is stated above according to opposite party   the repudiation of complainant’s claim is justified.  As there is no deficiency on his part it is prayed for the dismissal of case with cost.

5.     Opposite parties filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as B1 to B5 to prove the case.

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments.

7.     Hence the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant made out any case against opposite parties to prove deficiency?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
2. What is the quantum of compensation that can be granted?

8.     Point No.1 & 2 :-  Admittedly complainant’s business premises at D.No.52/18 - A  Kurnool possessing stock of Medicines, Surgical equipment, Computers, Printers, Furniture, Fixtures etc., was insured against any natural calamity  for the  period from 23-07-2009 to                     22-07-2010 under the policy No.551001/11/09/3100000126 dated               23-07-2009 for Rs.14,00,000/- by paying premium of Rs.2,860/-. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy along with terms and conditions of policy. On 02-10-2009, Kurnool town was afflicted with heavy floods particularly the ‘entire’ old town where the complainant business premises is located, Ex.B2 is the copy of surveyor’s report prepared under the instructions of opposite party and Ex.B5 is copy of repudiation letter.  As per the Ex.B2 the shop was classified as first class construction building and the insured firm of the complainant satisfied insurable interest.  Drugs placed on the floor were damaged due to inundation as the water level reached up to a height of one foot in the shop.  An inventory of damaged drugs was prepared and assessed net loss as Rs.2,30,138/-.  Surveyor’s report clearly says the cause of loss is due to inundation.  The contention of opposite parties that the loss of stock by way of inundation is because of entering of downpour rain but not due to entering of flood water, so the claim of the complainant does not fall with in the preview of the policy.  The clause 6 of terms and conditions of the policy envisage that loss, destruction or damage directly caused by storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado Flood or inundation falls with in the purview of the policy.  In the present case flood water remained unabated at maximum of 18ft for two days in the low lying areas of Kurnool Town the drainage system went out of the gear.  As a result the out lets in the open area adjacent to the stock room and show room of the complainant business premises were blocked. Consequently the water level raised in small open area of complainant’s business premises and water entered into the rooms causing inundation of stock.  Therefore the contention of opposite party that flood is not responsible for the loss of stock cannot be appreciated and hence the repudiation of complainant’s claim is not in order.  Thus the contention of complainant about the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties is sustained entitled him for the reliefs as prayed for.

9.     Point 3 :-  The complainant claimed Rs.3,60,000/-/- with 18% per annum interest as compensation.  But looking the facts and material placed on record Rs.2,30,138/-  with 9% per annum  interest from the date of repudiation of claim by opposite party  is allowed along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony caused by opposite party.

10.    In the result the complaint is  allowed directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,30,138/- with 9% per annum interest from the date of repudiation of claim i.e., 23-02-2010 Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the case.  The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1^st day of August, 2011.

          Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

                                         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill           For the opposite parties: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of Insurance Policy bearing No.551001/11/09/3100000126 dated 23-07-2009 along with conditions of the policy.

Ex.A2.       Repudiation letter dated23-02-2010 issued by

opposite party No.1.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Insurance Policy bearing No.551001/11/09/3100000126

dated 23-07-2009 along with conditions of the policy.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Survey report dated 09-02-2010.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of letter dated 23-02-2010 by

opposite party No.1 to complainant.

Ex.B4                Photo copy of letter dated 05-03-2010 by complainant to

opposite party No.1.

Ex.B5                Photo copy of letter dated 08-03-2010 by

opposite party No.1 to complainant.

          Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                   PRESIDENT                    LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :