Date of Filing ::05-01-2011
Date of Disposal ::31-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Friday, this the 31st day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.46/2011
Challa Hari Babu,
son of Venkaiah,
Hindu,
aged 60 years,
resident of ward No.3,
Lingamgunta Village,
Maddipadu Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) The Auction Superintendent,
Auction Platform no.20,
Tobacco Board, Ongole-1,
Kurnool Road, Ongole,
Prakasam District.
2) The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company
Limited,
Opp: to Rajamathadevi Towers,
Nellore Bus stand centre,
Santhapet, Ongole, Prakasam District.
3) The Regional Manager,
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company
Limited,
3rd floor, Peejay Plaza,
V.I.P. Road, C.B.M. Compound,
Visakhapatnam-530 003. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 24-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Pyneedi Subba Rao, advocate for complainant and Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for first opposite party and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, advocate for opposite parties 2 & 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is a tobacco grower. The complainant is growing tobacco under the instructions of the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the branch manager of the third opposite party. The tobacco barn of the complainant was partly damaged due to Liala cyclone. The complainant informed the same to the first opposite party, who in-turn, informed the same to the second opposite party. An authorized surveyor was appointed to estimate the damage, by the second opposite party. The second opposite party was prepared to pay Rs.13,000/- towards full satisfaction. The complainant refused to receive the same. However, the second opposite party was prepared to pay only Rs.13,000/-. The complainant got issued a legal notice. The opposite parties did not settle the claim. Hence, the complaint for payment of Rs.75,000/- towards damage to the complainant, compensation and costs.
2. The brief averments of the counter of first opposite party are as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. It is fact that the tobacco barn of the complainant was damaged in the month of May, 2010, due to the cyclone. The opposite party is only a facilitator and has nothing to do with the activities of the second opposite party. The second opposite party has to settle the claim. There is no privity of contract. The complainant is not a consumer. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The brief averments of the counter of second opposite party are as follows:
The complainant informed the damage to his barn in Liala cyclone. This opposite party appointed an independent surveyor, who inspected the premises and assessed the loss at Rs.15,655/- after deducting policy excess and salvage. As per the terms of the contract, the complainant is not entitled to any amount in excess of Rs.10,000/- on each and every claim. The opposite party sent a cheque after deducting premium to the complainant, to the tobacco board. Hence, there is no deficiency of service. As there is no deficiency of service, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is filed with false allegations. The opposite party is not liable to the reliefs. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The third opposite party adopted the counter of second opposite party through a memo.
5. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
6. The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3, the junior legal executive and independent licenced surveyor filed their affidavits as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked for the opposite parties 2 & 3.
7. POINT:- The affidavits of the parties are more or less in accordance with their stand in this case. The written arguments filed by opposite parties 2 and 3, also reflect the respective contentions of the parties in the case. They are repetitive of the averments of the counter mostly. As such, the contentions of the parties are being dealt with in essence. Each and every contention found in the written arguments, is not being dealt with separately.
8. The complainant insured his barn with the second opposite party. The complainant filed this case against the officer of the tobacco board and the insurance company. The first opposite party contended that it has nothing to do with the insurance claim and that it is between the complainant and his insurer, i.e., the second opposite party. The above contention is relevant. The complainant has no claim against the first opposite party. His grievance is that the insurance company has not paid the money even after damage. Therefore, the first opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceeding. The claim in this complaint can be decided even in the absence of the first opposite party. As such, the complaint is dismissed against the first opposite party, without costs.
9. The second opposite party contended that it processed the claim as per the report of the surveyor and that it has not committed any deficiency of service. The opposite party also filed the affidavit of surveyor (R.W.2). The report of the surveyor is marked as Ex.B2. Under Ex.B2, the surveyor arrived at the net loss at Rs.15,655/-. The complainant filed compact disc, which was not played in the Forum. The surveyor arrived at the net loss, after deducting depreciation, salvage and policy excess. The opposite party contended that as per the terms of the policy, these deductions are permissible. The complainant has not filed any material to repudiate the above claim of the opposite party. The opposite parties processed the claim in a manner and arrived at the loss as per the rules. Any party acting within the frame work of rules, is not guilty of committing any deficiency of service. It might be the case of the complainant that the damage assessed was less. However, the same cannot be called deficiency of service.
10. Non-settlement of the claim by the insurer, is deficiency of service. However, settlement of the same in an approved manner is not a deficiency of service. The manner, in which the claim was settled by the opposite parties, is not to the approval of the complainant. In short, the complainant is not satisfied with the amount offered by the opposite parties. The same cannot be a deficiency of service. Since the complainant failed to establish a deficiency of service, the complaint is not maintainable. However, the second opposite party is directed to pay the amount which they offered to pay to the complainant, immediately, after disposal of this case. The point is held against the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs. The second opposite party is directed to send a cheque for Rs.15,655/- (rupees fifteen thousand six hundred and fifty five only) to the complainant, immediately, after disposal of this case.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of July, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 &3:
R.W.1 30-01-2012 G. Chandra Sekhar, son of late Rama Rao,
Hindu, aged 34 years, working as Junior Legal Executive, M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Vijayawada, now present at Guntur.
R.W.2 30-01-2012 Gorantla Chenchaiah, son of Pedda Veeraiah,
Hindu, aged 58 years, independent surveyor-cum-loss assessor, R/o D.No.37-1-406 (46/A), II lance, Bhagyanagar, Ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of tobacco grower’s pass book of
complainant.
Ex.A2 two photographs of barn.
Ex.A3 Compact disc filed by complainant.
Ex.A4 22-09-2010 Legal notice issued to the Ops 1 and 3.
Ex.A5 Two speed post receipts.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR SECOND OPPOISTE PARTY:
Ex.B1 Copy of Policy Schedule with terms and
conditions.
Ex.B2 18-07-2010 Copy of final survey report filed by surveyor.
Ex.B3 14-12-2010 Photostat copy of letter to the third opposite
party by the first opposite party.
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The first opposite party.
3) The second opposite party.
4) The third opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//Free copy//
