JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in OP No. 351/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.33,200/- to the complainant and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 300/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his house was insured with the opposite party against natural calamities for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. During the coverage period of the policy on 14-06-2004 the house was completely destroyed in rain and storm and falling of a coconut tree. The tiled roofing, wooden supports and walls were completely destroyed. According to him he has sustained a loss of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. The Surveyor of the opposite party assessed a sum of Rs. 21,800/-. The complainant got the damages assessed through the licensed building supervisor who have assessed the damages at Rs. 95,500/-. The Agricultural Officer, Village Officer and the Secretary of the Rural Co-operative Society has certified that the house has been completely destroyed. The complainant has sent a lawyer notice in this regard. 3. The opposite parties have contended that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant and that the house was insured by the Nanminda Rural Co-operative Society and that a sum of Rs. 21,800/- was paid on the basis of the survey report and the society has received the amount in full and final settlement vide receipt dated 15-09-2004. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and PW2, RW1, Ext.A1 to A11 and B1 to B15. 5. The contention stressed by the appellant is that the insured in the matter is the particular Rural Co-op. Society and that the complainant has no locus standi and also that the amount has been paid to the society and the society issued the receipt dated 15-09-2004 in full and final settlement. We find that Ext.A11 is the policy which contains a schedule which forms part of the policy. We find that it is a group insurance policy and the schedule contains the names of the beneficiaries although in the policy the name of the insured is mentioned as M/s Nanminda Rural Co-op Housing Society Ltd. In the schedule attached to the policy the names of the individual insured are mentioned. The name of the complainant is entry No. 36 wherein the sum assured is mentioned as Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant has sent a representation vide Ext.A3 dated 13-08-2004 protesting that the amount said to have been sanctioned is quite inadequate. The alleged payment is dated 15-09-2004 vide Ext.P4. Soon after vide Ext.A6 dated 30-09-2004 the complainant has sent a lawyer notice. We find that in view of Ext.A3 representation the appellant ought to have settled the claim with the complainant as well. It cannot be held that Ext.B4 voucher signed by the Secretary of the Society without concurrence of the complainant is a record of full and final settlement. Hence we find that the above contention has to be rejected. 6. As pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent the house has been fully destroyed. This is evidenced by Ext.A9 proceedings as per which the complainant has been paid Rs. 15,000/- as per Ext.A8 G.O which is for providing relief to the owners of the houses which have been fully damaged on account of natural calamities. Ext.B2 survey repot also would indicate that the entire house has been damaged. It is mentioned that the superstructure has been broken at many spots extending to the entire area and the roof tiles damaged. In Ext.P2 the damages sustained to the walls etc are not mentioned. It would appear from the photographs etc. produced that the entire house would have to be reconstructed. In the circumstances, we find that Ext.P4 report of the licensed building supervisor and the Assistant Engineer PWD is more reliable and reflect the true state of affairs. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Sr. | 
