C.C. filed on:09.06.2016
C.C. Disposed on:15.03.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH – 2017
C.C. No. 79 OF 2016
:PRESENT:
SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL LLM. PRESIDENT,
SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
G.S. Srishylakumar, A/a 48 years,
Proprietor, Sri. Mallikarjuna
Coir Industries, N.H.-206,
N.Mathighatta, Nittur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru
District.
( By Sri/Smt. G. Sreepathi – Advocate)
-V/s-
OPPOSITE PARTY/IES
1. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited,
No.1001:56, Jayalakshmi
Mansion, II Floor,
Dr.Rajkumar Road, 4th Block,
Rajaji Nagara, Bangaluru-560 010.
2. The Manager,
Authorized Signatory,
The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, Branch Office, TGMC
Building, J.C.Road,-Tumakuru-01.
3. Sri. Jagadeesha .B, Agent : Broker,
BA0000036246, C/o The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited,
TGMC Building, J.C.Road,
Tumakuru – 572 101.
( OPs By Sri./Smt. Indiramma, Advocate)
: O R D E R :
BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. - PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,91,750-00 towards loss together with interest @ 12% and further prays to direct the Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000-00 towards mental agony and for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000-00 towards expenses.
The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
2. The complainant is running a coir industry in his land bearing survey No.12:1B situated at N.H.206, N. Mathighatta, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk and in this regard the complainant has obtained O.D. facility from State Bank of Mysore, Gubbi Branch and also obtained memorandum letter(¸ÀtÚ G¢ÝªÉÄUÁV G¢ÝªÉÄzÁgÀgÀ eÁÕ¥ÀPÀ «ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ) from Directorate of Industries and Commerce Department.
The complainant further submitted that he has insured his industry and the said insurance covers for Rs.1,00,000-00 towards Stock, Rs.2,00,000/- towards materials in Godown and Rs.2,00,000-00 towards Plant and Machinery and also the policy cover sum assured of Rs.15,00,000-00 towards STFI cover, Fire Basic cover and Earth Quake cover as per insurance certificate. The complainant further submitted that the Ops have issued the policy by collecting a premium of Rs.1,742-00 and the said policy was in force from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015.
The complainant further submits that on 20.03.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. accidentally his industry caught fire and due to that he has suffered loss of Rs.8,91,750-00. Thereafter he submitted all the documents as per the direction of OP’s surveyor to claim the insurance amount.
The complainant further submitted that he has given a complaint to the jurisdictional police and also obtained acknowledgment and the said police also conducted Mahazar in that regard and further the Fire Brigade Department has issued affidavit with regard to fire accident. The complainant further submitted that to claim the insurance amount, the complainant has submitted 17 documents as per the direction of the surveyor of OP No.2 and in spite of receipt of those documents, the Ops have repudiated the claim as “No Claim” stating that the fire accident occurred in a open place and the policy does not cover the stocks which were in the godown.
The complainant further submitted that due to fire accident, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.8,91,750-00. It is further submitted that he has not sent legal notice separately as because the complainant has sent letter dated:27.05.2016 through registered post requesting the Ops to pay the policy amount.
The complainant further submitted that the loss suffered by the complainant due to fire accident as per the policy certificate and further the OP No.3 has suppressed some material facts at the time of making the policy and due to that and also due to the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, the complainant suffered loss and mental agony and hence the complainant filed this complaint.
3. Upon service of notice, the Ops appeared through their counsel and filed the version. In the version the Ops submitted that they have no knowledge with regard to the averments made in Para No.1 and also denied the averments made in Para-3 of the complaint.
The Ops further submitted that the said claim was repudiated on the ground that the stocks stored in open was not covered by insured at the time of taking the policy and it is further submitted that the insured has not approached the Grievance/Redressal Cell against the repudiation of the claim.
The Ops further submitted that according to the insured’s statement the value of stock at risk including Raw materials, stock in process and Finished goods, as per breakup is to Rs.5,58,000/- Coir products (Finished goods) is Rs.2,00,000/- only, this clearly shows that the insured did not intend to cover all the stocks and materials lying in the insured premises.
The Ops further submitted that as per policy conditions the maximum liability of the company in respect of stocks cannot exceed the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, this is made clear as per policy condition No.10, which states as follows:-
“If the property hereby insured shall at the breaking of any fire or at the commencement of any destruction of or damage to the property by any other peril hereby insured against by collectively greater value than the sum insured thereon, then the insured shall be considered as being his own insurer for the difference and shall bear a retable as being his own insurer for the difference and shall bear a ratable proportion of the loss accordingly. Every item, if more than once, of the policy shall be separately subject to this condition”.
The Ops further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. At the time of filing of complaint, the complainant produced and marked documents as Ex.C1 to C14. The Ops have not marked any documents. Based on the above materials the following issues will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
5. Our answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No (1) : In the Affirmative
Issue No (2) : As per final order below
: REASONS:
Issue No. (1):
6. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence documents, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is running a coir industry in his land bearing survey No.12:1B situated at N.H.206, N.Mathighatta, Nittur Hobli Gubbi Taluk. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has obtained insurance for Rs.1,00,000-00 for stock, Rs.2,00,000-00 for materials in Godown and Rs.2,00,000-00 for Plant and Machinery. Further, the risk cover for STFI was Rs.5,00,000-00, Fire Basic Cover for Rs.5,00,000-00 and Earth Quake Cover for Rs.5,00,000-00, totally Rs.15,00,000-00.
7. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the complainant has taken the insurance for one year for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 and the complainant had paid a premium of Rs.1,742-00. It is also an admitted fact that on 20.03.2015 the coir Industry of the complainant was caught fire.
8. The contention of the complainant is that after the fire accident for the above said Industry, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.8,91,750-00. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs and submitted the documents to Ops/Insurance Company. But the Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” stating that the fire accident occurred in an open space and the policy covers material stored in godown.
9. Admittedly, the policy was in force at the time of above said fire accident. The claim of the complainant repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the fire occurred in an open place, whereas the policy covers materials stored in godown.
10. On perusal of the document Ex.C6 it is seen that the police have stated in the column ºÁ¤VqÁVgÀĪÀ MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ £ÀµÀÖ as under:-
1. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 l£ï PÀZÁÑ £ÁgÀÄ
2. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 l£ï gÉr £Ágï.
3. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 l£ï ¨Éé £ÁgÀÄ
4. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 l£ï PÉÆPï ¦Amï ¥ËqÀgï
6. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 ®PÀë ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀ «ÄµÉ£Àj ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
7. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 ¸Á«gÀ ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀ «ÄµÉ£Àj ±Éqï
MlÄÖ gÀÆ.8,91,750-00
Further, on perusal of the affidavit/Ex.C9 issued by Fire Brigade Department, wherein it is mentioned at the column CVß C£ÁºÀÄvÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À «ªÀgÀ as under:-
“15 X 50 Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ fAPï ²Ãmï¤AzÀ ¤«Äð¹zÀÝ PÁSÁð£É PÀlÖqÀ, PÁSÁð£É DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀÝ vÉAV£À £ÁgÀÄ, £ÁgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀ ªÀĶãÀjUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ 12 vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀ, 30 ºÉÆAUÉ ªÀÄgÀ, 10 vÉÃUÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀ, 25 ¨Á¼ÉVqÀUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉAQAiÀiÁV ¨sÁUÀ±À: ¸ÀÄnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
On perusal of the aforesaid report and Police Panchanama/Ex.C7, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the coir produce machinery was damaged. That being the case, the fire had occurred inside the godown. On the above we come to the conclusion that the fire had occurred inside the Godown and the materials stored in the godown was damaged.
11. Further, the Ops also not produced any documentary evidence to show that the fire had occurred outside the Godown. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence, the contention of the Ops cannot be considered. Hence, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the repudiation made by the Ops is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Issue No.2
12. On perusal of the policy it is seen that the insurance covered the stock for Rs.1,00,000-00, Materials in Godown for Rs.2,00,000-00, Plant & Machinery for Rs.2,00,000-00. On perusal of the police report, Fire Brigade Report and statement of Shree Mallikarjuna Coir Industries with regard to loss of stocks as on the date of loss as under:
STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF STOCKS IN FACTORY PREMISES AND ITS VALUE, as on the date of loss
1. Coconut Husk : Rs. 60,000.00
2. Semi Finished Husk 25 tons X 13000 : Rs.3,25,000.00
3. Coir Fiber 5 tons X 15000 : Rs. 75,000.00
4. Coco Peat 18 tons X 1000 : Rs. 18,000.00
5. Baby fiber 1 ton X 8,000 : Rs. 8,000.00
6. Curled ropes 4 tons X 18,000 : Rs. 72,000.00
Total Rs.5,58,000.00
LIKEWISE THE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF BURNT STOCK ITEMS AND VALUE, as on date of loss
1. Semi finished husk 20 tons X 13,000 : Rs.2,60,000.00
2. Feber 5 tons X 15000 : Rs. 75,000.00
3. Coco Peat 15 tons X 1000 : Rs. 15,000.00
4. Baby fiber 1 ton X 8000 : Rs. 8,000.00
Total : Rs. 3,58,000.00
On the above report, the loss suffered by the complainant for the stock and materials in godown for Rs.3,58,000/-. On perusal of the policy, it is seen that the insurance covered for stock and materials in godown is Rs.3,00,000.00. Hence, the complainant is entitled for only Rs.3,00,000.00 towards stock and materials. Further, on perusal of Ex.C6 i.e. Police report, wherein it is seen that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.5,00,000-00 towards damage of machinery. But the complainant has taken the insurance policy for plant and machinery for Rs.2,00,000-00 only. Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,00,000-00 towards damage of machinery due to fire accident and totally the complainant is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- under the insurance policy along with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim to till realization. Further, it is seen that the Ops have committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,000-00 towards compensation. Apart from that the complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000-00 towards cost of the litigation. The OP No.3 is only a bridge between the complainant and OP Nos. 1 & 2. Hence, the complaint against OP No.3 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
-:O R D E R:-
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby Allowed in Part.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000-00 (Rs.Five Lakhs only) to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant till realization.
Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000-00 (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000-00 (Rs. Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.
The complaint against OP No.3 is hereby dismissed.
The Ops 1 & 2 are directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of this order.
Communicate the orders to the parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th Day of MARCH 2017).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
