This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 1-9-2009; in the presence of Sri.K.Raja Sekhara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.Ravindranath, Advocate for opposite party No.1, and of Sri.G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following order:
O R D ER
(Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President)
1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Vani Traders and he is doing a retail and wholesale business like iron and hardware items and also some house items. He applied bank loan for development of his business in Andhra Bank, Madhira branch. On 2-2-2005 he availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 and spent the said amount towards purchase of additional items of iron and hardware items. As per the advice of opposite party No.1, he had insured his business and other goods in the shop with opposite party No.2. On 6-4-2005 he had taken shopkeepers fire insurance policy over the shop vide policy bearing No.051701/48/06/34/00000026 valid from 6-4-2005 to 5-4-2006 and used to pay the premium amount of Rs.1,746/- to the opposite party No.2. On 13/14-3-2006 in the early hours the shop of the complainant was burnt and all the metals kept in the shop also burnt, due to electric short circuit. The complainant intimated the same to the Madhira Police station and also the fire station. The material in the shop was burnt to ash causing the loss of Rs.13,00,000/-. The fire officials also extinguished the fire. In the investigation of police, the witnesses are examined and panchanama was conducted. As per the investigation it is revealed that the said fire accident had occurred due to short circuit. The fire insurance was in force as on the date of accident. The fire officer calculated the damage and issued Fire Attendance Certificate vide Rc.No.28/FR/ MDR/06, DT.8-4-2006 and estimated the damage of Rs.11,00,000/-. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite party No.1 and also opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had appointed the investigator and assessed the damage of cement, iron, hardware, other goods, furniture of the shop and other decoration also. The said report is filed by opposite party No.2 herein. The opposite party No.2 calculated the damaged stock worth of Rs.16,840/-. But according to the complainant, the total loss of stock was worth of Rs.12,23,023/- and before the accident in the shop the total stock worth of Rs.12,75,000/-. Madhira Police conducted panchanama and estimated the loss worth of Rs.12,50,000/-. The complainant submitted application before opposite party No.2, but they rejected the claim on the ground that actual damage is caused only Rs.70,000/- and the claim is made for huge amount. Later, the complainant approached the Ombudsmen at Hyderabad for settlement of the claim, but the same also rejected. Hence, this complaint.
2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant also filed affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint.
3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed counters.
4. In the counter of opposite party No.1, the averments made in the complaint are totally denied. It is further submitted that there is no question of the deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 and they are no way concerned regarding the payment and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.2 also filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. It is further contended by opposite party No.2 that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and without producing any documentary evidence, the value of the stock lying in the shop as on the date of fire accident, the complainant cannot nourish any grievance against the opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. On behalf of the complainant, chief-affidavits filed and the following documents have marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7.
Ex.A.1 - Attested copy of Panchanama, dt.14-3-2006
Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of List of the material before the
Fire Accident
Ex.A.3 - Attested copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.2
by complainant , dt.9-8-2006
Ex.A.4 - True copy of Fire Attendance Certificate, dt,8-4-2006
Ex.A.5 - Attested copy of claim form, dt.8-9-2006.
Ex.A.6 - Acknowledgments Nos.(2),
Ex.A.7 - Letter addressed to the complainant by
opposite party No.1.
7. On the other hand the opposite party No.1 filed chief-affidavit.
8. On behalf of opposite party No.2, the following documents have been marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.
Ex.B.1 - Copy of policy
Ex.B.2 - Survey report, dt.18-6-2006
Ex.B.3 - Letter, dt.16-8-2006
Ex.B.4 - Letter addressed by the complainant, dt.9-8-2006
Ex.B.5 - Photos taken at the place of accident.
9. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the point that arose for consideration is,
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages
caused in the accident?
2. To what relief?
Points No.1 and 2:
10. The case of the complainant is that he is running retail and wholesale business like iron and hardware items, electrical and also house material and taken insurance from the opposite party No.2, which was valid from 6-4-2005 5-4-2006 and used to pay an amount of Rs.1,746/- as premium. So far as taking of policy is concerned, it is not in dispute the other aspects of the complainant that on 13/14-3-2006 in the early hours, the shop was burnt due to electrical short circuit and sustained damage to a tune of Rs.12,23,023/-. That on his complaint, the S.H.O., Madhira conducted investigation, examined witnesses and estimated the damage worth of Rs.12,50,000/- are all denied. The next contention of the complainant that the opposite party No.2 had appointed official surveyor, who collected all the records of Commercial tax and income tax returns and bank statement and verified the opening and closing stocks and identified the stock damage, to a tune of Rs.12,89,413/- and damage caused is Rs.26,840/- are also denied. The opposite party No.2 rejected the claim, due to the condition that there is violation of shopkeepers fire insurance policy.
11. On the other hand it is the case of opposite party No.2 that the claim of the complainant is exorbitant and not supported by the evidence regarding the damage caused in the accident. It is further denied by the opposite party No.2 that the official surveyor assessed the damage for Rs.12,89,413/-. The said report is filed. The claim of the complainant has not supported by any valid reasons. It is the case of opposite party No.2 that the claim of the complainant is rejected on the ground that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the shopkeepers fire accident policy. Either in the counter or during the course of arguments, it is not made clear which condition of shopkeepers fire accident policy is violated by the complainant. It is also not revealed in the letter of opposite party No.2, which is marked as Ex.A.5. It is mentioned in Ex.A.5 that the confidential report and loss cannot be ascertained by the complainant. On the other hand the opposite party No.2 had appointed official surveyor, who has visited the place of accident and filed report, dt.18-6-2006, which is marked as Ex.B.2. It is coming from the custody of opposite party No.2.
12. On careful perusal of Ex.B.2, it is made clear that before assessing the said damage caused in the accident, the surveyor verified the stock and concluded that at the time of fire accident, the stocks were verified and gave details of the stock maintained by the complainant. The fire accident is said to have taken place and damage caused to a tune of Rs.2,49,880.40/-. This document is coming from the custody of opposite party No.2. Ex.B.2 is the relevant and important piece of document. It is a crucial document. A positive inference can be drawn out of this document. This document is outcome of investigation made by the official surveyor by name G.V.Vasantha Rao appointed by opposite party No.2. This document therefore can safely believed to estimate the actual damage caused to the property involved in the accident. The surveyor report is an important document and it cannot be brushed aside. According to this document, an amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 ps. is said to have been caused damage to the property of the complainant in the fire accident. Basing on the report of the official surveyor of opposite party No.2, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 PS. In this case the complainant has taken the insurance of opposite party No.2 and assured amount is Rs.3,00,000/- as described in the policy marked as Ex.B.1, which is within the limits of the sum assured. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is fit to be allowed.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 (Rupees two lakhs, forty nine thousand, eight hundred and eight and forty paise) together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. So far as the claim against the opposite party No.1 is concerned, it is dismissed as it is a proforma party and the complainant is nothing to do with the opposite party No.1.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 24th day of September, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Attested copy of Panchanama, dt.14-3-2006
Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of List of the material before the
Fire Accident
Ex.A.3 - Attested copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.2
by complainant , dt.9-8-2006
Ex.A.4 - True copy of Fire Attendance Certificate, dt,8-4-2006
Ex.A.5 - Attested copy of claim form, dt.8-9-2006.
Ex.A.6 - Acknowledgments Nos.(2),
Ex.A.7 - Letter addressed to the complainant by
opposite party No.1.
Exhibits marked for opposite party No.2:
Ex.B.1 - Copy of policy
Ex.B.2 - Survey report, dt.18-6-2006
Ex.B.3 - Letter, dt.16-8-2006
Ex.B.4 - Letter addressed by the complainant, dt.9-8-2006
Ex.B.5 - Photos taken at the place of accident.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM,KHAMMAM
