SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for getting an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.6,59,050/- to complainant towards the damage happened to the stock insured with opposite party in the flood together with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to him due to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the proprietor of Meenakshi wood works, Payyannur. He has been conducting the business for the last several years. While he availed a loan from Syndicate Bank, Payyannur Branch. As such the establishment has been insured in insurance company through the syndicate bank Payyannur Branch for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The policy number is 3002011119P105587003. He is very much regular in paying the loan amount and the insurance premium. Due to heavy rain and flood the machineries were damaged and the stocks of timber and plywood items have been lost. Immediately the complainant contacted OP and filed an application before them for the insurance claim for a loss of Rs.6,59,040/-. As such they have sent a surveyor namely Raghunathan to assess the damages and he inspected the premises. The surveyor was very much convinced about the loss caused to complainant. The complainant repeatedly contacted OP on various occasions and expected that they will take necessary steps to release the insurance amount. On the contrary they have sent a notice with flimsy reasons in order to delay the payment. He complied all the formalities which are required for the insurance claim as demanded by OP. While so on 26/11/2019 OP sent a notice stating that “insured has not maintained proper stock register, sales and purchase bill” etc. The complainant says that the surveyor while inspecting the building, he has produced all the register to the surveyor. The complainant says that the act is to deny the insurance amount which legally entitled and to cheat him. More over the Payyannur Muncipal Secretary also verified the entire fact and was convinced also and a certificate was issued to that effect. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP and the surveyor. OP is colluded each other in order to deny the legally entitled insurance amount. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice OP entered appearance through counsel and filed written version denying the entire allegations made by the complainant against them. It is stated that OP have repudiated the claim subject to standard fire and special perils policy condition No.8 of the policy. “If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof, or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the willful Act, or with the convenience of the insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited. In addition to the above condition, the claim lodged by the insured, Sri.Venkatesan, proprietor, Meenakshi wood works is for stock damage due to flood water on 10/08/2019. As per the photographs submitted by The insured, there is no chance of flowing of stock from the factory premises, there is a sizeable heap of plainer dust is very much visible at the time of inspection on 10/08/2019 in the factory premises. Machinery is not covered in the policy. Hence damage on machinery is not admissible. In view of the above condition No.8 of the policy, insured was given false declaration made for the loss or damage claim under stock of wood. OP cannot admit the claim under the policy. Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
Both parties led evidence. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. He was examined as Pw1 and the documents were marked Ext.A1 to A8. Pw1 was subjected to cross-examination for the OP and marked Ext.B1 to B9 documents. On behalf of OP, the senior Branch Manager of OP filed his chief affidavit and was examined as Dw2. The surveyor and loss Assessor, Mr. Raghunathan P P who made site inspection and prepared survey report was examined as witness on the side of OP as Dw1 and marked the survey report with photos as Ext.B1. Both witnesses of OP were subjected to cross-examination for the complainant.
After that the learned counsel appearing of the complainant has submitted written argument note and the learned counsel for the OP made oral argument before the commission.
The undisputed facts in this case are the complainant has been conducting a wood work industrial unit namely Ms Meenakshi woods works and has taken a standard fire and special perils policy having No. 3002011119P105587003 with OP. The period of Insurance was from 20/07/2019 to 19/07/2020. The description of property covered are stock of wood and leather and the sum insured was Rs.10,00,000/-. Policy certificate was produced from the side of complainant Ext.A1 and policy document with terms and conditions was produced from the side of OP Ext.B2. The other admitted fact is that complainant had submitted a claim form for fire and allied perits on 26/08/2019 to OP for the loss caused to the insured items in flood (Ext.B2). The other admitted fact is the said claim application was repudiated by OP through Ext.A5 letter dated 26/11/2019 stating the reason that “on scrutining of the file, it is found that damages sustained only to machineries which was not covered under the policy. As per the survey and investigation conducted it was clear that there is no chance of flown the stock of plywood and timber as stated by complainant in the claim form. So there is no liability on the part of OP and complainant’s claim stand ‘Repudiated’ Insured has not maintained proper stock register, sales and purchase Bill”
The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that due to flood, the insured goods wooden furnitures and ply wood furnitures kept inside the shed of building were washed away from the enclosed premises and thus caused a loss of Rs.6,59,040/- and submitted the stock statement supporting the stock to the Insurance company. Acording to complainant OP company committed an error, since OP company did not take into consideration the stock statement supporting the case of complainant with respect to loss of wood and plywood furnitures.
It is also contended that stock statement, purchase invoices, sale bills copies, day book were submitted to supports the claim of complainant.
Further contended that inspection conducted by surveyor appointed by OP, cannot be of any evidentiary value since the surveyor found a heap of plainer dust is visible in the vacant plot, the surveyor came to a conclusion that the wooden logs and ply woods are flowed is a fabricated story of complainant. The surveyor failed to consider the material price of evidence and as such the survey report and his findings cannot be taken as evidence.
On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel of OP, that as per surveyor’s report there was no actual damage caused to the wooden logs and plywood and there was no stock also. Further submitted that though wooden logs were flowing in the flood, OP is not liable to compensate as those items were kept outside the building premises carelessly in vacant space. According to OP the insured must keep the insured stock very carefully in enclosed premises. Then only the insured will get the Insurable interest. Further submits that since the complainant has violated the policy condition he is not entitled to get the policy benefit. OP further submitted that the stock statement, invoices etc, were submitted after 1 ½ months after the incident. Those documents are fabricated documents also.
It is also contended that there was no stock kept at the premises of complainant as alleged by the complainant and the wooden logs were not washed away in flood. Further stated that the complainant had not occurred any loss in the flood. According to OPs the claim of complainant was repudiated as per General condition No.8 of Ext.B2 policy. So according to OP, the repudiation of complainant’s claim in justifiable.
In the instant case, in support of its claim complainant did not adduce any evidence except filing self attested documents, Ext.B4 to B9 stock statement, purchase invoices, sale bills copies, day book before the surveyor after 1 ½ months of the incident, which remained unproved. Complainant relied upon those documents. However the said documents cannot be held as authentic documents without attesting any authority. Complainant submitted that the stock statement is being given to the bank in every month from where loan was taken. Then he could have produced certified copies of stock statement for proving his averment. Here it is to be noted that the surveyor mentioned in his report that during the inspection time, when he asked for book of accounts such as stock register, ledger, purchase and sales bill copies, the complainant reported that he is not in a habint of keeping book of accounts such as stock register, purchase and sales bill. Then Ext.B4 to B9 documents submitted to the surveyor in belated time without attesting by any authority cannot be considered as authentic documents. Moreover it is evident that the office room is function in upstairs of the building. Then the important documents like stock register, sales books etc were washed away in flood as contended by the complainant is not a believable statement. Through Ext.A4, certificate issued by secretary, Payyannur, Muncipal council, complainant could prove only the incident of flood and it affected the complaint’s materials. But the quantum of loss could not be proved by the complainant through substantial documents. Then it could be inferred that complainant is not able to substantiate the gravity and loss of damage affected to his wood works centre.
The fact that on lodgment of the claim, the Insurance company appointed the surveyor, who actually visited the spot, carried out the investigation and arrived at conclusion that the claim is falsely made. The surveyor noticed that there was no actual damage cause to the stock, and the complainant could not show the stock register and other account details to the surveyor, while he was doing the inspection, by its report informed the Insurance company that the claim of complainant was not genuine. The said report is supported by photographs. Against the survey report Ext.B1 there is no evidence in rebuttal adduced on behalf of the complainant.
Admittedly, the Insurance policy was taken for the stock, which were hypothecated with the syndicate bank, Payyannur. As per the hypothecation deed, the trader was supposed to handover monthly statement of the stocks with the bank. Had there been any stock at the unit place on the incidental date, its record would have kept in the Bank. Here complainant failed to produce any records of actual stock on the day of incident of flood. In the circumstances, we find that the report of surveyor remained unimpeached and thus, the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance company cannot be faulted as arbitrary and without any basis. Thus no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company could have been alleged.
In the result complaint fails and hence it is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1-Insurance Policy
A2-Claim form
A3-Survey report
A4-Certificate issued by Muncipality (marked with objection)
B1- survey report with photos
B2- policy document with terms and conditions
B3- claim form
B4toB9- stock statement, purchase invoices, sale bills copies, day book
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-Reghunathan PP –Surveyor
Dw2-Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
