BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1419/2007 against C.C. 370/2005, Dist. Forum, Rajahmundry
Between:
The Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
3B, Balaji Mangalagiri Chambers
VIP Road, CBM Compound
Visakapatnam-3,
Rep. by its Manager. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. Chintha Suryachandra Rao
S/o. Venkanna, Age: 62 years
R/o. Kalavacharla, Rajanagaram Mandal
East Godavari Dist.
2. Chinthala Suri Babu,
S/o. Narasimha Rao
R/o. Kalavacharla, Rajanagaram Mandal
East Godavari Dist.
3. Chintha Rama Rao
S/o. Satyanarayana
R/o. Kalavacharla, Rajanagaram Mandal
East Godavari Dist. *** Respondents/
Complainants.
4. B. Narendranath
D.No. 24-1-63/1,
Brothern Church
Opp. Korukonda Road
Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
5. The Auction Superintendent
Tobacco Board, APF-15
Thorredu, East Godavari Dist.
(R4 &R5 are not necessary parties
to the appeal) *** Respondent/
O.P.No. 3
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. D. Krishna Murthy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Opposite Party No.1 preferred this appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay 97,500/- together with interest and costs.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that they were having tobacco barn in Seetharamapuram village of Rajanagaram mandal insured for the year 2004-2005 by the Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board, Thorrede R3 with the appellant insurance company. While so, on 1.2.2005 the barn was destroyed in a fire accident. The A.P. Fire & Emergency Service put off the fire and assessed the damage at Rs. 1,30,000/-. R3 also gave a certificate to that effect. When the claim was preferred to the appellant it in turn appointed R2 a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 19,900/- which appellant intended to pay for which they did not agree. On that a legal notice was got issued but the appellant did not give any reply. Therefore they prayed that an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest, compensation and costs be awarded.
3) Opposite Parties 1 & 2 did not choose to contest the matter and therefore they were set-exparte.
4) Opposite Party No. 3 resisted the case. It alleged that it is a statutory authority under the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 competent to regulate barrens, tobacco cultivation area etc. It has been discharging the sovereign functions. It has nothing to do with the claim made by the complainants with the appellant. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked, while R3 filed Exs. X1 to X7.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had taken the insurance policy for the tobacco barn with the appellant and when the said barn was destroyed in the fire accident they were entitled to the amount albeit, on non-standard basis. Accordingly appellant was directed to pay Rs. 97,500/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing complaint till the date of realization besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The claim against opposite parties 2 & 3 was dismissed.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that complainant No. 3 was not covered by group insurance policy. Basing on the surveyor’s report Rs. 15,775, Rs. 7,887/- and Rs. 7,887/- was estimated totaling Rs. 31,550/-. Since the complainant No. 3 was not covered by the policy an amount of Rs. 19,900/- was settled towards the claim and directed to be paid to the complainant Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly took tobacco barns evidenced under Ex. A2 certificate issued by the Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board, APF No. 15, Thorredu and were gutted. Ex. A2 reads that:
“Barn bearing TB No. 14033004 belonging to Sri Chinta Suryachandra Rao, TB No. 14031025 of Sri Chintala Suri Babu and TB No. 14031027 of Chinta Rama Rao located in Sitaramapuram village of Rajanagaram mandal was totally gutted in fire accident occurred on 1.2.2005. All the VFC tobacco sticks loaded in the barn and the barn equipment such as stringed bamboo sticks, all the tyre poles, the wooden turssees, all the woden frames of the windows were totally reduced to ashes. The top roof iron sheets, the cast iron pipe and the furnace set were also damaged in the fire accident. The remaining four walls of the barn developed cracks and may not be useful for further use.”
10) The fact that said barn was destroyed owned by the complainants 1 to 3 was certified by Fire Officer, Rajahmundry. He noted the loss at Rs. 1,30,000/- mentioning that it was reported by the owner. The insurance company alleged that immediately after information they have appointed a surveyor who in turn visited the spot, and assessed the damage at Rs. 19,900/-.
11) At the outset, we may state that the appellant did not choose to contest the very matter. It is not known why it did not contest. Even in the appeal the report of the surveyor was not filed. It is not known why it had suppressed the report of the surveyor. It could have filed some document in the appeal to substantiate that complainant No. 3 was not one of the insurers in the group policy. We may state that when the complainant gave legal notice through their advocate evidenced under Ex. A4, the Auction Superintendent, R3 gave reply under Ex. X2 categorically mentioning that the complainants are registered with the Tobacco Board for the crop season 2004-2005 and they are enrolled for barn insurance with M/s. Bajaj Insurance Company appellant for the year 2004-2005. It was further mentioned that when he received the voucher for Rs. 19,900/- the claimants have refused to sign on the ground that the claim was insufficient. The said fact was also informed to the appellant.
12) Despite the said letter, the appellant contrarily alleges that the complainant No. 3 was not covered under the policy and his name did not find a place in Ex. X5 list furnished by R3 pertaining to the list of growers and the persons covered by insurance policy. Obviously, the entire list furnished by the Manager of R3 was not filed. The list containing S.Nos. 48 to 71 was only appended. The insurance company admits that the surveyor had assessed the loss for all the three complainants adverted to solely on the ground that complainant No. 3 name was not mentioned in Ex. X5 an amount of Rs. 7,887/- was deducted. When R3 Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board mentioned that all the three complainants were covered by the group insurance policy evident from his letter Ex. A2 there is no reason why the said statement was not accepted. It did not give any reply either to the complainant or to R3. The policy No. of the complainant No. 3 was also noted as 14031027. It did not specifically deny the said fact. Without filing the report of the surveyor who assessed the loss, we do not see how the appellant could contend that it had settled the amount at Rs. 19,900/-for a lesser amount than that was claimed by the complainant.
13) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the surveyor’s report across the bench without even filing a memo to receive it as additional evidence. Assuming that there are no rules nor rules of CPC apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act to receive it as evidence, even a perusal of the report shows that the survey report pertains to first complainant Sri Chintha Surya Chandra Rao. The insurer had categorically mentioned that the barn was insured for Rs. 1 lakh and the stocks for Rs. 30,000/-. Alleging that there is an under insurance, he assessed the net loss at Rs. 31,550/-. He stated that the claim may be settled at Rs. 31,550/- subject to terms and conditions and warranties of policy. He categorically mentioned that the barn was shared by three insureds. The name of the third complainant was made a mention. On the ground that the claim of 3rd complainant was not covered, it had settled at Rs. 19,900/-. This is contrary to the report of the very surveyor. When the surveyor had categorically stated that complainant No. 3 was also covered under the policy, basing on a portion of schedule appended to the report of Manager of the Tobacco Board the appellant cannot deny his claim. The Dist. Forum basing on the certificate issued by the Fire Officer as well as Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board (R3) quantified the loss at Rs. 97,500/- on non-standard basis. We agree with the opinion expressed by Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
14) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 19 .05. 2010.
*pnr
