The case of the complainant is that the complainant was residing in a well-built building. While so, he availed a policy from New India Assurance Company that covers his building from natural calamities. When the policy was in force, consequent to heavy flood during the month of July/August 2007 his residential building sustained dreadful damage causing heavy loss. On the basis of this policy, he preferred a claim before the opposite party on 25.10.2007. The opposite party appointed a surveyor to inspect the building. Taking into account the said surveyors’ report the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The complainant took this matter up to the grievance cell of the opposite party. The grievance cell upheld the view of the opposite party and turned its back on the complainant’s claim. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum seeking direction for payment of the claim amount and other relieves.

            2.   The opposite party filed version. The complaint is unsustainable in every aspect. There is no deficiency of service, the opposite party contends. Instantaneously after the receipt of the complainant’s claim, the opposite party appointed and engaged a surveyor to assess the cause and cost of the damage. As per the surveyor’s report the damage was caused not due to heavy rain or any other natural calamity. The residential building of the opposite party sustained damage due to defective construction, lack of maintenance and the consequent wear and tear of the building. The cost of the said damage if any is too meager. As per the terms and condition of the insurance policy, the complainant is virtually disentitled to any of the relief sought for in the complaint. The complaint is only to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite party.

            3.    The complainant himself was examined as PW1, and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. The manager of the opposite party was examined as RW1. On the side of the opposite party Exts. B1 to B4 were marked.

            The points arise for consideration are:-

a.       Whether the damage sustained by the residential building of the complainant was caused by any natural calamity?

b.      Whether, if any the complainant is entitled to the policy amount and other damages?

4.        The points (a) & (b) are inter-connected and can be considered together. The issuance of insurance and its coverage during the material time have not been disputed by the opposite party. The crux of the contention of the opposite party is that the damage of the building cropped up not as an outcome of heavy rain or flood but as a result of defective construction and poor maintenance. As soon as the complainant submitted the insurance claim with the opposite party, it appointed a qualified surveyor who at once inspected and investigated the basis and extent of the damage sustained to the building. The surveyor submitted the report. As per the same, the damage is not of alleged magnitude, but meager which was assessed to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only). Still the opposite party is not liable to pay the said amount for the reason that the alleged damage evolved absolutely from defective construction and inferior maintenance. On a closer scrutiny of the oral testimony and other materials on the record, it appears that the complainant has not seriously challenged the surveyor’s report. The complainant has no case that the said surveyor was incompetent or inept. He has no consistent case that the surveyor is either biased or predisposed. Such a plea has not taken fervently anywhere in the complaint or later. Further the complainant has not proved that the site of his building is low-laying or stagnation prone. Thus, we feel that the complainant has not gone any single step to prove his case or disprove the other one the opposite party advanced.

 

            5.    It is true that the complainant has produced the photo copies of the certificates from Haripad Grama Panchayath and Karthikappally Thaluk Office in order to show that the damage was the direct effect of the natural calamity. An estimate from PWD. Asst. Engineer Aliyamma has also been produced which does not give anything out to resolve the issue in question. But for so many reasons, all these evidences filed by the complainant have no evidentiary value. The affidavit of these persons should have been got filed by him. Marley producing the copies of the certificate cannot take place of proof. There for, we hold that there is no evidence worth the name to show that the residential building of the complainant sustained damage from the impact of the heavy rain or resultant flood.

 

6.   On the other hand, we must observe that the surveyors are the best persons to assess the cause and cost of the damage if any and they do it after detailed scrutiny of the facts as they prevail, taking into account the evidence made available by the insured and the terms and conditions of the policy. We need not go into other controversies viz. the period in which the heavy rain took place etc. as they are not necessary to determine the present case.

In what we have discussed above the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear with their own costs.

Pronounced in open Forum, on this the 30^th day of August, 2010.

 

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi

 

 

 

 

 

// True Copy //

 

                                                                       By Order

 

  

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Party/S.F.

 

Typed by:- vo/-       

   Compared by:-