D.O.F:25/02/2020
D.O.O:06/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.36/2020
Dated this, the 06th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
1. Kuttikrishnan Nair, aged 64 years
S/o. Gopalan Nair,
Represented his son
2. Sajimon, aged 45 years,
S/o Kuttikrishnan Nair
Both are residing at Pulikkal House : Complainant
Dharkhas.P.O, Malom Village,
Vellarikundu Taluk
Kasaragod – 671533
Adv: C. Krishnakumar)
And
1. Bureau Chief
Malayala Manorama
Near Gokulam Jewellery
Kottachery, Kanhangad
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Divisional Officer, Kottayam
Pin – 666001.
(Adv: K.Vinod Kumar)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber of Malayala Manorama daily News paper and its weekly for several years. He heard about Jeevan Bhavan suraksha policy through the news paper having coverage of complainant and his family cum residence. On 10/08/2019 his residential house damaged due to natural calamity. Incident is reported to the authorities. The Opposite Party No:1 directed the complainant to submit the complaint to Opposite Party No:2. A claim was submitted to Opposite Party No:2, insurance surveyor and visited the property and instructed to file estimation of maintenance. Accordingly estimate given to surveyor. After submitting all records Opposite Party No: 1 informed that the Opposite Party No:2 repudiated the claim since door number furnished by the complainant is different, instead of entering 456 entry shows 495. The act of the Opposite Party is repudiating the liability amounts to deficiency in service for that he claims Rs. 3, 50,000/- as for damages and Rs. 3, 00,000/- for compensation for mental agony and Rs. 40,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Notice of Opposite Party No: 1 served, absent set exparte. The Opposite Party No:2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the averments in the complaint. The Opposite Party No:2 admitted that the complainant is the holder of the personal accident and home insurance policy but its coverage limited to condition shown therein. Opposite Party denied the calamity and damage caused to home. On 12/12/2019 directed to the complainant to produce the documents on 19/12/2020 and 04/03/2020. He did not produce the same. Opposite Party No:2 denies liabilities to pay the compensation.
3. The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1, witness Pw2 to 4 are examined from his side Ext A1 to A12 documents marked. Ext A1 to A3 is certificate cum receipt, Ext A4 is the news report of calamity, Ext A5 is the agency receipt, Ext A6 is the estimate of maintenance work, Ext A7 Postal acknowledgment, Ext A8, 9, 10 documents list of including ownership certificate given to Opposite Party, Ext A11 cash receipt, Ext A12 details of the building.
The Opposite Party filed documents and marked as Ext B1 to B3, Ext B1 is survey report about the house, Ext B2 copy of policy of terms and condition, Ext B3 copy of special contingency policy.
4. Following points arise for consideration in the case.
a) Whether house owned/insured by complainant damaged due to natural calamity with in the insurance period and if so repudiation of liability by insurance company is justifiable in law?
b) Whether there is deficiency in service from Opposite Party? If so whether complainant entitled for compensation ? If so for what reliefs?
5. The fact remains that in the written version Opposite Party No:2 has not mentioned door number of house for which residential house insurance is obtained. The door number of the house for which damage is caused is also not mentioned. The written version shows that house damaged is different from one insured as per policy.
6. The complainant examined as Pw1. In cross examination suggestion was made to Pw1, as per A3 the policy is obtained for 7/495. Further suggestion A,8,9 and 10 were not given to Opposite Party No:2. Those document were produced with complaint. In the version insurance company did not dispute its correctness or authority. It is also suggested that insurance is to IV/496. The Opposite Party No: 2’s case in the policy is obtained for 7/495, claim is made to get insurance for 7/496.
Pw2 is secretary of Balal Grama Panchayath. He deposed that house door No: 7/496is owned by complainant as per records. Ext A8 to A10 documents prove the same. In cross by Opposite Party No: 2, 7/495 is not allotted 7/496. He did not visit after damage. Further suggestion is that entire portion of that building referring to 7/496 is not damaged.
Pw3 is the civil drafts man who inspected 7/496 noted its damages. Except basement entire building damaged. He estimated the damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-
Pw4 is the insurance surveyor who inspected house of complainant. It’s estimated damage is Rs. 30,000/-.No suggestion by Opposite Party No:2 surveyor inspected any other house Opposite party No:2 has no case that Ext A8 to 10 and A12 not genuine documents or created for the purpose of the case.
Considering the evidence adduced by complainant and Opposite Party Commission holds that complainant is the owner of insured building door No: 7/496of Balal Grama Panchayth. The residential house damaged in natural calamity and suffered damages. The repudiation letter is not supported by legal or acceptable evidence and hence not acceptable. There is thus deficiency in service is not honoring their commitment by Opposite Party No:2 and Opposite Party No:2 is liable to pay insurance benefits to complainant. The Opposite Party No:1 is exempted from liabilities. Complainant is also entitled for compensation for mental agony and tension.
So the Commission holds that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as insurance benefits for damage to building. The Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- reasonable and adequate compensation for deficiency in service and liable to pay cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part the Commission hereby directs Opposite Party No:2 to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to complainant as insurance benefits for damages to the building to the complainant with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The Opposite Party No:2 also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 to A3- Certificate cum receipt
A4- the news report of calamity
A5- agency receipt
A6- estimate of maintenance work
A7- Postal Acknowledgment
A8, A9 & A10- documents list of including ownership certificate
A11- cash receipt
A12- Details of building
B1- survey report
B2- copy of policy of terms and condition
B3- copy of special contingency policy
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sajimon
Pw2- Rajeesh Karayi
PW3- Basheer.A
Pw4- Raghunathan Puthanpurayil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
