BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.327/2008 against CC.No.149/2007 District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole.
Between:
Bajaj Allianz General insurance Company Ltd.
Peejay Plaza,
Door No.10/1/44/9, 3rd Floor,
VIP Road, CBM Compound,
Visakhapatnam – 530 016.
…Appellant/O.P.No.1.
And
1.Daka Mahalakshamma,
W/o.Raghava Reddy, Hindu,
Tobacco Cultivator,
…R.1/Complainant.
2.Auction Superintendent,
Tobacco Board II,
Auction Platform No.19,
Opp. Ramnagar, Ongole,
…R.2/O.P.No.2.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.Ajay Kumar (for R.1).
Mr.S.Srinivas Reddy (for R.2)
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, FIFTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No.1, the Insurance Company, against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing it to pay Rs.87
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the owner of a tobacco barn insured with opposite No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- covering the period from 19.10.2006 to 18.10.2007 While so, there was a cyclone on 30.10.2006 whereby material as well as property was damaged. Therefore, the complainant claimed Rs.92
3. The appellant resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy, it alleged that as soon as it received claim it had appointed a surveyor, who in turn visited the barn and assessed the loss at Rs.15 However, the complainant did not agree for the said amount though it was ready to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The 2nd opposite party, the Auction Superintendent, filed counter alleging that it had no concern with the claim made by the
5. The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.12, while the opposite parties got the documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.
6. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could prove the loss of property worth Rs.87
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party No.2, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective. It ought to have accepted the estimate of the surveyor at Rs.15 It gave proper reply to the notice issued by the complainant and therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, consequently the complaint be dismissed.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts and law?
9. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant issued a policy, Ex.B.1 covering the period from 19.10.2006 to 18.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- mentioning that it covers risks viz. fire and allied perils for tobacco structures, stocks of tobacco leaves and personal accident cover for farmers. It is also not in dispute that there was a cyclone on 30.10.2006 wherein the baron was damaged along with tobacco. The complainant by mentioning details of the loss issued a notice Ex.A.11 claiming the amount for which the appellant gave a reply, Ex.A.12 stating that a surveyor was appointed, who in turn assessed the loss at Rs.15,620/-, Ex.B.2. Disagreeing with the said estimate the complainant filed the complaint.
10. The particulars of damage were shown below:
30 tyres … Rs.15 100 bags cement …. Rs.18 Iron … Rs.10 Baron under Zinc sheets … Rs. 6,500-00
… Rs. 3,000-00
… Rs. 3,500-00
Zinc Sheets … Rs. 3,000-00
Labour for construction … Rs.20 Labour for wood work … Rs.3 Bricks and sand … Rs.10 ------------------
Total … Rs.92 ==========
An independent surveyor by name, G.P.Penchala Reddy visited the property on 11.12.2006, eleven days after the accident. He assessed the total loss of material at Rs.52 However, after giving depreciation of 50% i.e. Rs.26120/-, salvage value of Rs.500/- and the policy excess he assessed the net loss at Rs.15
11. The Supreme Court in a decision Saraf Associated Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in IV (2008) CPJ 76 (NC) opined that the Insurance Company cannot appoint surveyors at its choice. Having accepted the value of the property at Rs.1 Not satisfied with that deduction, he still slashed the amount by deducting salvage value of Rs.500/- and policy excess of Rs.Rs.10,000/-. We may state herein, that the surveyor without any basis, had estimated the net loss at Rs.15,620/- in his own way and without giving any reason whatsoever as to why so much of depreciation could be made within a period of 10 days. This is wholly unjustifiable. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the report of the surveyor is not worth consideration and therefore we agree with the finding of the District Forum. The complainant in fact has given an estimate which cannot be said to be on higher side since it was supported by receipts Exs.A.1 to A.9. Pertaining to the amounts spent towards repairs, the surveyor did not enquire as to the truth or otherwise of the receipts filed by the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason why the amounts covered under those receipts shall not be granted to the complainant. The District Forum after appreciation has rightly awarded compensation directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.87,460/- by awarding reasonable interest and compensation though an amount of Rs.92,500/- was claimed.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
DtVvr.
