O R D E R
(By Sri D. Shankar Rao, Member)
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,64,627/- to the complainant firm along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the claim amount till realization and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation besides costs of the complaint.
2. The complaint was originally filed on 17-2-2011 and it is amended as per the orders passed in I.A.No.149/2011 dated 16-8-2011 and filed neat copy of amended complaint on 6-9-2011. Briefly stated that the complainants No.2 to 6 are partners of the partnership firm of complainant No.1 under the name and style as ‘M/s Sree Venkata Sai Industries’ located in Sy.No.205/A, and 205/AA extent of 6 Acres 3 guntas at Nacharam village of Kosgi Mandal in Mahabubnagar district. The complainant No.2 is the Managing Partner of said firm which is carrying the business of para boiled rice. The said firm have established its machinery and godowns for keeping stocks and obtained two crore loan from OP-3 bank by mortgaging its properties through a Registered Mortgage Deed No.72/2008, dt.7-1-2008. The OP-3 bank is a financier to the business of firm which is having insurance coverage from OP-1 company for standard fire and special perils through a policy from 28-5-2008 to 27-5-2010 by extending from time to time. There was a gale with heavy rains and high speed winds in the evening on 29-5-2009 and caused damage to the properties of firm. The paddy to the tune of 1,500 quintals and rice to the tune of 600 quintals which were kept in godown have been drenched completely. The Insurance Policy No.050203/11/09/00000109 being covered from 28-5-2009 to 27-5-2010 for plant, machinery, accessories of Rice Mill with sum insured Rs.1,57,50,000/- and another Insurance Policy No.050203/11/09/11/00000108 being covered from 28-5-2009 to 27-8-2009 for raw material of paddy and finished rice of various kinds including boiled rice with sum insured Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the incident on 29-5-2009 and informed to OP-2 on the very date of incident. The OP-2 has visited and inspected the godown and site and seen the drenched paddy and rice. The OP-2 has informed the same to OP-1 about the damage caused in the godown of the firm.
The Survey of Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad have visited the premises of firm on 30-5-2009 and the complainant No.2 has furnished the relevant information and documents on behalf of firm in response to a letter dated 1-6-2009 issued by said Surveyors. As per inspection, the Professional Surveyors have assessed the loss and damage towards paddy and rice to the tune of Rs.4,69,715/- and the same was communicated through a letter dated 4-8-2009 to the firm and OPs.1 to 3; but they have also sent a letter dated 29-6-2009 stating that the property of firm is said to be situated in Sy.Nos.201 and 201/A as per the policy instead of in Sy.Nos.205 and 205/AA in reality. The complainants of the firm have given explanation. The OP-3 has also clarified the same through letters dated 1-7-2009 and 9-9-2009 in detail. But the OP-1 company has repudiated the claim of complainants firm through a letter dated 9-9-2009. Again the complainants firm and OP-3 have submitted explanation in detail in a separate letters on 23-9-2009 to OP-2 and the grievance cell of OP-1 company. The OP-2 has also replied through a letter dated 20-11-2011 to the complainants firm that the insurance policy does not cover the property which is situated in Sy.Nos.205/A and 205/AA of Nacharam village.
That the Sy.Nos.201 and 201/A are agricultural land and there are no structures. The physical verification and site inspection and documentary evidence fortifies and confirms the fact that the Mill, buildings and godown are located in Sy.Nos.205/A and 205/AA. The representative of OP-1 Sri Narayana has visited the site and verified the documents but mentioned the Sy.Nos.201 and 201/A instead of Sy.Nos.205/A and 205/AA in the proposed form of the policy. The Assistant Bank Manager of OP-3 has signed on said proposed form. It is purely a mistake on the part of OP-1 and OP-3. The OPs.1 and 2 have simply repudiated the claim of complainants firm is not substantial. Therefore the OPs.1 and 2 are liable to pay the damages and loss to the complainants firm.
That as per the estimation and assessment of the complainants firm there were 2000 bags of paddy equivalent to 1,500 quintals. The value of paddy at Rs.1,600/- per quintal comes to Rs.16,32,000/- as per FCI prices. The entire damaged stock has been sold in the market and the amount fetched from the sale comes to Rs.9,97,636/- as per original invoice book. The actual paddy loss comes to Rs.6,34,364/-. There were 600 quintals of rice and valued the same for Rs.9,60,000/- as per FCI prices. The amount fetched from the sale of damaged rice comes to Rs.5,29,737/- as per original invoice book. The actual rice loss comes to Rs.4,30,263/-. The total loss comes to Rs.10,64,627/- which the complainants firm is entitled from the OPs.1 and 2. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs on account of failed to pay the damages suffered by complainants firm. Hence this complaint.
3. The OPs.1 and 2 have filed their counter and stated that the OP-1 has issued the policy by taking responsibility to insure the properties like buildings, machinery and stock of the complainant No.1’s firm premises located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A of Nacharam village, Kosgi Mandal, Mahabubnagar district. It is true that the Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad have visited the premises of Rice Mill and on their verification, the Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA of Nacharam village of Kosgi Mandal, Mahabubnagar district, whereas the policy issued that the said Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A of Nacharam village. The OPs.1 and 2 have gone through the report of Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad and came to know that the alleged damaged property is not located in the insured premises. The OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of complainants firm. The Forum has no Jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of damaged property. All other allegations have been denied. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed against OPs.1 and 2 with costs.
4. The OP.No.3 bank has filed its counter and stated that the complainants firm which is carrying para boiled rice business have obtained loan from OP-3 bank by depositing title deeds & original sale deeds and mortgaged 6Ac.03Gts., of land in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA with plant & buildings through Registered document No.72/2008, dt.7-1-2008. It is true that the said property Rice Mill building and other structures are existing. It is true that on 29-5-2009 there was heavy rain and wind and caused damages to the properties and stock of the complainants, but not aware as to the exact loss. It is true that the insurance officials have visited the Rice Mill premises. The Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad has addressed a letter on 29-6-2009 and informed that as per insurance policy the property is said to be located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A, but as per records it is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA of Nacharam village. It is clarified that the said Rice Mill property not at all located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A and the OPs.1 and 2 are also aware of said fact. The OP-3 bank not known as to how the said wrong survey numbers were mentioned in the Insurance Policy. In fact the OP-3 bank never intimated OPs.1 and 2 to the effect that the Rice Mill property is located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A. Further the officials of OPs.1 and 2 have visited the site in question and inspected the entire building and structures, plant and machinery and verified the documents from OP-3 bank before issuing policies; hence it is for the complainants and OPs.1 and 2 to resolve the issue. It is also true that the land bearing Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A are agricultural lands and there are no structures. In fact the land mentioned in the said policy does not belong to the complainants and the Rice Mill does not exist in the said lands. The documents available with OP-3 and as per physical verification and factual position the plant and machinery is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA but not in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A. This factual site have been physically verified before issuing the policy. The OPs.1 and 2 cannot escape their liability by simply saying that the building and Rice Mill are not located in the survey numbers mentioned in the policy. The OP-3 bank has paid premium amount by debiting the account of complainant No.1 on its instructions. It is false to say that the OP-3 bank has taken the insurance policy from OP-1 on behalf of the complainants firm. It is not the responsibility of OP-3 bank to take policy. The OP-3 bank has advanced loan to the complainants and they are bound to take all the precautions to their properties and insure the same if they are so advised. In fact, irrespective of the fact that they insure their properties or not, they are bound to repay the loan amount to OP-3 bank. Thus taking insurance is the issue between complainants and OPs.1 and 2 and they have to resolve the issue between them and the OP-3 bank has nothing to do with the same. Therefore the complainants are not entitled any relief against OP-3 bank and their complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. During enquiry, the complainant No.2 Challa Sri Ramuloo S/o late Challa Kistaiah who is Managing Partner has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of complainants firm and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-75 documents and closed its evidence. The OPs.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit of one G. Jagadeshwar S/o late G. Mankaiah, Assistant Divisional Manager of its company at Kurnool as evidence and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-8 documents and closed their evidence. The OP-3 not filed its affidavit evidence but got marked Exs.B-9 to B-14 documents on its behalf.
6. Heard arguments.
7. The points for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service in repudiation of claim
under the policy?
(ii) To what relief?
8. Point Nos.1 and 2:- There is no dispute that the Insurance Policy No.050203/11/09/00000109 in Ex.A-20 (Exs.B-8 & B-13) by covering for plant, machinery, accessories of Rice Mill with sum insured Rs.1,57,50,000/- valid from 28-5-2009 to 27-5-2010 and another Insurance Policy No.050203/11/09/00000108 in Ex.A-21 by covering for raw material of paddy and finished rice of various kinds including boiled rice with sum insured Rs.2,00,00,000/- valid from 28-5-2009 to 27-8-2009 were issued by OP-1 in favour of complainants firm.
9. The case of complainants firm is that there was a gale with heavy rain and high speed wind on 29-5-2009 and caused damage of 1,500 quintals paddy and 600 quintals of rice which were kept in godown have been drenched completely. The OP-3 bank has financed Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the firm on mortgaged the properties of firm through Registered document No.72/2008, dt.7-1-2008. The Insurance Policies were taken to the firm by OP-3 bank from OP-1. The firm is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA in Nacharam village right from the date of inception of Rice Mill plant, machinery and its godowns. The complainants firm under the name and style M/s Sree Venkata Sai Industries has purchased the land in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA through Registered sale deeds and constructed the Rice Mill with its godowns and erected plant and machinery for carrying para boiled rice business. The OP-1 has issued Insurance Policies after physical verification of the site and Registered documents. The loss is assessed for Rs.10,64,627/- towards damage of paddy and rice. The land in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A is not belongs to complainants firm and still it is under agriculture field and no structures therein. The wrong survey numbers are incorporated in the policies but not for change of location. It is purely mistake on the part of OPs.1 & 3. The repudiation of claim on the ground of location change is illegal.
10. In order to prove the case, the complainant No.2 filed his affidavit on behalf of complainants firm as evidence and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-75 documents.
11. The version of OPs.1 and 2 is that the complainants firm Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A at Nacharam village as per policy. As per verification and report of Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, the complainants firm Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. Therefore the damaged property is not located in the insured premises and thereby the OPs.1 & 2 have repudiated the claim.
12. In order to prove their version, the OPs.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit of their Kurnool Assistant Divisional Manager G. Jagadeshwar as evidence and relied upon Exs.B-1 to B-8 documents.
13. The version of OP-3 bank is that the complainants firm obtained loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the bank and mortgaged their Rice Mill properties located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. The bank has no role in obtaining the insurance policy from OP-1. However, the bank has paid the premium amount to OP-1 for issuing insurance policy by debiting the amount in the account of complainants firm on its instructions. The officials of Insurance Company have visited the site and verified the Registered documents from bank before issuing policy in favour of complainants firm. How the wrong Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A are entered in the policy inspite of verified the Registered Sale Deeds pertaining to the Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA. There is no Rice Mill structures of complainants firm in the land in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A at Nacharam village. There is no other Rice Mill in anywhere in the locality at Nacharam village or in the surrounding villages except the Rice Mill of complainants firm located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA from the date of its inception. However it is the issue between complainants firm and OPs.1 and 2 but not the issue of OP-3 bank.
14. In order to prove the version, the OP-3 bank has got marked Exs.B-9 to B-14 documents without objection.
15. Therefore the dispute swirls around the change of location of Rice Mill properties and assessment of damages in the incident occurred on 29-5-2009.
16. The learned counsel for the complainants firm vehemently argued that the officials of OP-1 Company have visited the complainants Rice Mill and its properties located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village and verified the Registered sale proceeds and Registered Mortgaged document from OP-3 bank and issued 1st policy in Ex.A-22 for a period from 28-5-2008 to 27-5-2009 and thereafter issued other policies in Exs.A-20 & 21 from time to time accordingly the details mentioned in 1st policy in Ex.A-22. The mistake of wrong Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A entered in the 1st policy in Ex.A-22 and have been continued the same in subsequent policies in Exs.A-20 & 21. It is a fault on the part of OPs.1 & 3. However he stressed that it is a typographical mistake but there is no change in the documents as well as in the location of Rice Mill and its properties.
17. The learned counsel for OPs.1 and 2 also vehemently argued that the policy of complainants firm is not confirming the location of Rice Mill and its properties in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village where the properties are damaged.
18. The learned counsel for OP-3 bank also vehemently argued that how the wrong Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A instead of Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA are entered in the policy when the officials of OP-1 have thoroughly verified the Registered documents of complainants firm and visited the Rice Mill and its properties located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village before issuing Insurance Policy. He stressed that the Registered documents and bank loan proceeds of complainants firm have not spoken the Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A. It is not a change of location from one place to another place. There is no Rice Mill and its structures in land in Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A and they are still under agriculture cultivation which is even not belonging to the complainants firm. The bank has clarified in detail upto higher level of Insurance Company. The bank has no role in obtaining the Insurance Policy from OP-1. It is the issue between the complainants firm and the OPs.1 and 2.
19. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire case record. We have also perused the exhibits on both sides.
20. Admittedly the complainants firm have not insured the buildings of Rice Mill. The claim of complainants firm is only for damage of paddy and rice which are insured for a period from 28-5-2009 to 27-8-2009 under the Policy No.050203/11/09/00000108 with sum insured Rs.2,00,00,000/- in Ex.A-21. Ex.A-3 is showing, Partnership Deed of complainants firm. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are showing, the complainants firm has purchased the land in total extent of 6Ac.03Gts., in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. Ex.A-4 is showing, Mortgage Deed between complainants firm and OP-3 bank wherein the Rice Mill location is shown in the land in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village as schedule of property. Ex.A-5 is showing, Appraisal Memorandum from OP-3 bank wherein the complainants firm address is shown in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. Exs.A-31 to A-33 are Pahanis showing, the land in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village belongs to complainants firm. The Pahanis in Exs.A-34 to 36 are showing one Ramaiah, Venkatamma, Venkataiah and Chandraiah are Pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy.Nos.201/A, 201/AA, 201/E & 201/EE at Nacharam village. Ex.A-39 is issued by Technocrats Company showing, the complainants Rice Mill is constructed in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. Ex.A-41 is issued by Gram Panchayat, Nacharam village showing, the complainants Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA. Exs.A-69 to A-75 are subsequent policies issued by OP-1 showing, the complainants firm Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. All these documents are showing, the complainants firm Rice Mill and its godowns are located only in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA right from the date of its construction. There is no location change either in Registered Sale deeds in Exs.A-1 & A-2 or in the Mortgage deed in Ex.A-4 pertaining to the complainants firm at the time of taking the Insurance Policy at first in Ex.A-22 or at the time of taking the effected policy in Ex.A-21 and at the time of taking the subsequent policies in Exs.A-69 to A-75 from OP-1 Company. It is not the case of OPs.1 and 2 that the complainants Rice Mill and its godowns were moved/changed from one location to another location. It is also not the case of OPs.1 and 2 that the documents pertaining to the complainants firm are showing different survey numbers than located the Rice Mill and its godowns in another survey numbers. Admittedly there is no change in the documents as well as physical possession of complainants firm Rice Mill and its godowns right from the date of first policy in Ex.A-22 till the date of last policy in Ex.A-75. It is pleaded by OPs.1 and 2 that the complainants firm Rice Mill and its godowns and their stock covered by effected policy in Ex.A-21 are not insured in the location of land in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. Only on sole ground of change of location, the claim of complainants firm have been repudiated by OPs.1 and 2 on the basis of report in Ex.B-2 submitted by Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. Therefore the onus to prove the same shifted to OPs.1 and 2 how the Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A are showing as location of the complainants firm Rice Mill and its godowns instead of their location in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village. The OPs.1 and 2 have not placed any supporting record showing that they have correctly entered the Sy.Nos.201 & 201/A instead of Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA as location of the complainants firm Rice Mill, its godowns and stock in the effected policy in Ex.A-21. In the absence of such evidence, we are not inclined to accept the version of OPs.1 and 2 that the location entry made in the effected policy in Ex.A-21 is a valid insured location. It is purely a fault on the part of OP-1 Insurance Company committed by its officials while entering the location in effected policy in Ex.A-21. It can be treated as typographical mistake or by oversight, but it could not be considered as location change. On the other hand the Registered Sale proceeds in Exs.A-1 & A-2 and Registered Mortgage deed in Ex.A-4 and other connected documents are proving that complainants firm Rice Mill is located in Sy.Nos.205/A & 205/AA at Nacharam village right from the date of its construction and as on the date of taking 1st policy in Ex.A-22 till taken the last policy in Ex.A-75 and there is no change in the location. Therefore we are of the considered view that the claim of complainants firm under the policy in Ex.A-21 is repudiated by OPs.1 & 2 on a ground of location change as per Ex.B-1 is not correct and proper and the OPs.1 & 2 are liable to pay the admissible claim of the complainants firm.
21. Now coming to the point of claim assessment. The OPs.1 & 2 have relied on the survey report in Ex.B-2 wherein the Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad have assessed the damages occurred on 29-5-2009 towards paddy and rice to the tune of Rs.4,69,715/- due to high speed wind and heavy rain.
22. The complainants firm have assessed the loss towards damaged paddy and rice to the tune of Rs.10,64,627/- by relying on ‘Form-B’ Register in Ex.A-6 and Tax Invoices in Exs.A-45 to A-60. Exs.A-25 to A-28 are one and the same with the Exs.A-45 to A-48.
23. The Professional Surveyors and Loss Adjustors Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad have inspected the premises of complainants firm Rice Mill and its godowns on 30-5-2009 soonafter the incident was occurred on 29-5-2009. At the time of inspection the damaged paddy and rice the surveyors have been verified the ‘Form-B’ Register in Ex.A-61 and came to conclusion that 1,400 quintal of paddy and 600 quintal of rice was damaged. They also observed that the effected items could be dried and sold at a discounted price. A few copies of sale invoices in respect of damaged rice and milled rice during the end of June, 2009 were examined by the surveyors. It is observed that the insured/complainants firm had disposed of the damaged rice at around 39% discount. The paddy minimum support price of Rs.930/- per quintal is taken on the basis of AMC (Agricultural Market Committee) certificate for the period of April, 2009. The rice minimum support price of Rs.1,436-06Ps., per quintal is taken on the basis of sale invoices bearing Nos.28148, dt.26-5-2009 and 28206, dt.28-5-2009 to FCI after deducting Net Profit @ 10%. Accordingly the surveyors assessed aggregate loss to the tune of Rs.6,05,409/-. Further the surveyors observed that there is excess stock of Rs.44,86,472/- than sum insured Rs.2,00,00,000/- under the effected policy in Ex.A-21. Therefore the purchase of excess stock @ 18.33% is to be deducted from the aggregate loss of Rs.6,05,409/-. As per the policy condition there would be deduction @ 5% as excess of claim for Act of God Perils from the aggregate loss. At last the surveyors have come to conclusion that there is net loss of Rs.4,69,715/- towards damaged paddy and rice under the effected policy in Ex.A-21.
24. The surveyors have given their report on 4-8-2009 in Ex.B-2 at one point for on ‘Insured Location’ and another point for on loss assessment. The report runs into 11 pages which is addressed to OP-1 Company and marked the copies of report to the complainants firm as well as OPs.2 & 3.
25. The complainants firm have claimed Rs.13,14,000/- before surveyors towards damages including building damages. The damages of building not considered since the building is not insured. Soonafter receipt of Surveyor’s report in Ex.B-2, the complainants firm have not raised their dispute over the loss assessment and put forth their claim either before surveyors or before OPs.1 and 2, but they are simply pleaded in their complaint that there is a loss to the tune of Rs.10,64,627/- towards damaged paddy and rice.
26. There is 100 quintal of paddy variation in quantity in multiplying the each bag weight @ 70 Kgs., as per the Survey report than the quantity claim of complainants firm. Generally the paddy bag would be weight @ 70 Kgs., each only. Hence the paddy quantity @ 70 Kgs., each bag multiplied by surveyors are proper and correct. The complainants firm have placed Tax Invoices in Exs.A-45 to A-60 for assessment of loss. The said Tax Invoices in Exs.A-45 to A-60 are issued only by the complainants firm but not by purchased firm. Simply the complainants firm have mentioned the collector permit numbers in said invoices but the said permits are not appended to them for matching the same with sale proceeds. The complainants firm also have not placed any scientific record for assessing percentage of discount to be deducted as salvage of damaged paddy and rice. The price quoted by surveyors for damaged paddy and rice have not rebutted by complainants firm. Therefore the complainants firm have failed to adduce cogent evidence and establish that there is a loss to the tune of Rs.10,64,627/- towards damaged paddy and rice for brushing aside the Surveyors report in Ex.B-2 in connection with the finding of net loss assessment @ Rs.4,69,715/- towards damaged paddy and rice.
27. The OP-3 bank is a financier to the complainants firm and facilitated the insurance coverage from OP-1 Company for the properties of complainants firm. The role of the OP-3 bank is acted as insurance facilitator as instructed by the complainants firm. Hence we are of the view that the grievance of complainants firm shall not be hold against OP-3 bank but it can be hold only against OPs.1 and 2 as discussed supra.
28. The complainants firm have not placed any record of evidence that their firm entitled for compensation.
29. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs.1 and 2 and they are liable to pay the net loss of Rs.4,69,715/- with 9% interest p.a. towards claim of damaged paddy and rice under Ex.B-2 from the date of repudiation i.e., 9-9-2009 till realization to the complainants firm under the effected policy in Ex.A-21 along with Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
30. IN THE RESULT:- The complaint is allowed in part as under:-
(1) The OPs.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,69,715/- with 9% interest p.a. towards claim of damaged paddy and rice under Ex.B-2 from the date of repudiation i.e., 9-9-2009 till realization to the complainants firm under the effected policy in Ex.A-21.
(2) The OPs.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/ to the complainants firm towards costs of the complaint.
(3) The complaint is dismissed against OP-3 without costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2014.
