IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No. 11/07 Between: Giji Johnson, Olichirackal House, Kadammanitta.P.O. (By Adv. Lalu John) …… Complainant And: - The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta. Addl.2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Sam Koshy) ….. Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant was conducting a tailoring shop at Kadammanitta in room No.V/234 in ward No.VII of Naranganam Panchayat. The said tailoring shop was insured for Rs.30,000/- with the opposite party and Rs.101 was paid as insurance premium for the period from 7.2.06 to 6.2.07. The opposite party issued a policy certificate No.570204/11/05/3100000950 in favour of the complainant. On 11.10.06 in between 8.30 p.m. and 3 a.m. on 12.10.06 the said shop caught fire and the whole stock of clothes were completely damaged in fire. The bill books, stock register etc. kept in the shop in connection with business also were lost in the fire. The cause of fire was electric short circuit and complainant had sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The accident of fire was reported to Aranmula police and Fire Station, Pathanamthitta. The fire force reached the spot and extinguished the fire. The Aranmula police visited the site and investigated the matter and FIR No.399/06 was registered. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties also. After that claim form and relevant documents were submitted to opposite party. But opposite party does not give a definite answer and tried to evade from reply. It is the duty of opposite party to settle the claim at the earliest. The non settlement of claim is a clear deficiency of service. Hence this complaint for getting the policy amount of rs.30,000/- with compensation for mental agony, damages and financial loss with cost. 4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party admitted that they issued fire and special perils policy to the complainant for Rs.30,000/-, covering the period from 7.2.06 to 6.2.07. After getting the claim form from the complainant, they deputed a competent surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant has produced the purchase bills and the assessment is shown as follows: Sl.No. Items Quantity Rate in Rs. Amount in Rs. 1. Churidar 17 355 6,035/- 2. Nighty 15 90 1,350/- 3. Frock (Girls) 8 195 1,560/- 4. Shirt (Boys) 10 130 1,300/- 5. Saree 8 305 2,440/- 6. Men’s Shirt 12 240 2,880/- -------------------------- Total 15,565/- Less policy excess 10,000/- -------------------------- Loss assessed 5,565/- 5. As per the statement given by the complainant the total value of stock is Rs.38,790/- against the sum insured of Rs.30,000/-. Hence the opposite party is constrained to apply the principle under insurance as follows: Net loss as per the principle of under insurance - 30000 x 5565 = 4303.94 38790 Less reinstatements value premium - 13.00 4291 ======= 6. Instead of accepting the said assessment amount the complainant straight away came to this Forum. The claim payable as per the above assessment is the adequate amount, which the complainant is entitled to get. The opposite party has processed the claim with due application of mind based on purchase bills and hence it cannot be said that service is deficient. Therefore, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with the cost. 7. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint is allowable? (3) Relief & Cost? 8.Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the document produced by him has been marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Evidence of the opposite party consists of the proof affidavit and document filed by the Branch Manager, Pathanamthitta. Document produced was marked as Ext.B1. After the closure of evidence, both parties heard. 9. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the policy certificate issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of FIR, FIS and final report in Crime No.399/06 of the Aranmula Police Station. Ext.A3 is the copy of Fire Occurrence Report of Pathanamthitta Fire Rescue Station. 10. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, the Branch Manager of Pathanamthitta filed proof affidavit along with one document. Document produced was marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the Final Survey Report of opposite party’s surveyor. 11. On the basis of the averments and contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. It is seen that opposite party has not disputed the issuance of Ext.A1 policy and the occurrence of fire incident. The contention of opposite party is that complainant is entitled to get only Rs.4,291/- as per Ext.B2 report. According to opposite party, they are ready and willing to pay the said amount. This matter was already informed to the complainant after processing of the claim. 12. On a perusal of Ext.A2 and A3, it is revealed that police and fire force authorities also assessed the loss and damage. They assessed the loss of building, and machinery and stock etc. It is not strictly based on insured items. Therefore, Ext.A2 and A3 is not fully reliable to find the loss based on Ext.A1 policy. 13. Complainant has not produced register book and account book to show his actual stock at the time of burning. As per Ext.B1 report the said documents were burned as a result of the fire. Available evidence on record shows that the only reliable evidence to determine the stock after the fire is the bills of cloth purchased. It is evidenced from PW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “claim form- t\msSm¸w km[\§fpsS bill-Dw insurance company-bn sImSp¯ncp¶p. Bill A\pkcn¨mWv km[\§ISbn I¨hSw sN¿p¶Xv”. 14. Though the complainant claimed Rs.10,225/- also as the value of cloth items kept in the shop for tailoring work, the same was rejected by Ext.B1 report stating that there is no supporting documents to prove it. Ext.B1 report also states that the total value of readymade items kept in the shop were burned and the value as per bill is Rs.28,565/-. The said amount is less than the insured amount of Rs.30,000/-. Though the complainant claimed more than the said insured amount, which is not supported by any evidence. Therefore it is presumed that the actual loss occurred is less than Rs.30,000/- and therefore policy excess is not deductable. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,565/-, the loss assessed as per Ext.B1 report which is also admitted by the opposite parties. The non-payment of the said amount is a clear deficiency of service. It is the boundan duty of opposite party to pay the said claim amount. Therefore, this complaint is partly allowable with interest and cost. Since the interest is allowed, no separate compensation is allowed. 16. In the result, complaint is partly allowed, thereby complainant is allowed to realize Rs.15,565/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand five hundred and sixty five only) with 7% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till this date from opposite party. Complainant is also allowed to realize Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost from opposite party. The amount so awarded is to be given to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow interest at the rate of 12% per annum from this date till the realization of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of March, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Jeeji Johnson Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the policy certificate issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Photocopy of FIR, FIS and final report in Crime No.399/06 of the Aranmula Police Station. A3 : Photocopy of Fire Occurrence Report of Pathanamthitta Fire and Rescue Station. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of Final Survey Report dated 1.12.2006. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) Giji Johnson, Olichirackal House, Kadammanitta.P.O. (2) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Pathanamthitta. (3) The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. (4) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
