KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 245/2019
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 110/2015 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, A 25/27-Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, 110 002 represented by its Dy. Manager, T.P. Hub, Do 11, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kasaragod represented by Dy. Manager, T.P. Hub, Do 11, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Varkala B. Ravikumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
B. Sadasivan, S/o Kunjiraman, Ambapuram, Mangad, Udma Village.
(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 110/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The shop of the respondent was insured with the appellants for an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh only) under a fire insurance policy. On 19.08.2014 at about 3.50 am, there occurred a fire in the furniture shop of the respondent due to electric short circuit and as a consequence, damage was sustained to the furniture of the respondent. The fire was immediately controlled. An IRDA approved surveyor was appointed for assessing the loss sustained by the complainant and the surveyor after assessment submitted a report stating that the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,57,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand only) was sustained by the respondent in the occurrence.
3. The appellants filed version admitting the policy coverage during the period in question. However, they would contend that the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 1,57,452/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Two only) and hence they were not bound to pay any amount over and above the said amount. The respondent had received the said amount and thereafter only, the present complaint was filed.
4. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked for the respondent. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked for the appellants. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellants/opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 4,92,548/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eighty only) towards insurance benefits with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. The appellants/opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants do not dispute the coverage of the policy as on the date of the incident. The incident is also not disputed. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation ordered by the District Commission.
7. Exhibit B1 is the survey report, which would show that the complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,57,452/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Two only) in connection with the incident. No objection was filed to the survey report. The survey report was also marked without any objection. The surveyor was also examined as DW1. Since no objection was filed to the report of the surveyor, the survey report is to be accepted and the amount in the survey report is to be taken as the loss sustained by the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Exhibit A1 report and submitted that the respondent is entitled to get compensation as directed by the District Commission. It is stated in Exhibit A1 report submitted by the Station Officer, Fire and Rescue that the respondent sustained a loss, due to the damage caused to the materials inside the building, to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand only). However, in the second page of Exhibit A1, there is a certification that the information furnished in Exhibit A1 was only in respect of the data to be forwarded to the department and the assessment in Exhibit A1 was not necessarily and fully accurate and any matter contained in Exhibit A1 could be determined only after due investigation by an appropriate agency. Since the person, who prepared Exhibit A1, had stated that Exhibit A1 report was not fully accurate, no reliance could be made on Exhibit A1. That apart, the person who prepared Exhibit A1 cannot be said to be a person competent to assess the damage.
9. The order impugned would show that the District Commission had accepted the amount assessed as per Exhibit A1 for the purpose of assessing the loss. The District Commission calculated the loss sustained to the plant and machinery at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only). However, there is absolutely no material to support the said calculation. It is not discernible as to how the District Commission obtained the said amount. The District Commission added Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shown in Exhibit A1 and the above said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) and obtained an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). Accordingly, the District Commission entered in to a finding that the complainant sustained a total loss of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only). The District Commission ought not have relied on Exhibit A1 for calculating the loss. The District Commission also ought not have added Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for calculating the loss.
10. It appears from Exhibit B3 that the respondent had received an amount of Rs. 1,57,452/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Two only) towards the full and final settlement of the claim. However, the respondent had willfully suppressed the factum of receipt of the said amount, as per Exhibit B3 receipt, in the complaint. This is, no doubt, suppression of material facts. Therefore, it can be said that the respondent did not approach the Commission with clean hands.
11. The respondent did not produce any material before the Commission to show that the respondent is entitled to get any amount over and above the amount of Rs. 1,57,452/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Two only) assessed by DW1 surveyor in Exhibit B1 report. In the absence of any evidence, the District Commission was not justified in directing the appellant to pay Rs. 4,92,548/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eighty only) to the complainant towards insurance benefits.
12. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. This being the fact, the order passed by the District Commission directing the appellants to pay Rs. 4,92,548/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eighty only) cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same. In the said circumstances, the costs and compensation ordered by the District Commission also cannot be sustained.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 110/2015 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
