BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 1st day of March, 2012
C.C.No.79/2011
Between:
M/s.Green Textiles, Represented by its Proprietor
U.Chithambar Nath Rao,Shop.No.3, Abdulla Khan Estate,Kurnool - 518 001.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Company Limited,
H.No.40/304, Mourya Inn Complex,Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool - 518 001.
2. Andhra Bank,Represented by its Branch Manager,
H.No.40/29, Park Road Branch,Kurnool - 518 001
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri G.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.79/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards flood damaged assessed amount with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of incident to i.e., 02-10-2009 till the date of realization;
- To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is running Textiles Business in the name and Style of M/s Green Textiles. The complainant hypothecated the stock in the shop to opposite party No.2 and obtained loan. The opposite party No.2 insured the stock with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/00000012 in favour of the complainant. The policy was valid from 27-04-2009 to 26-04-2010. On 02-10-2009 the complainant shop was submerged in flood water and entire stock in the shop was damaged. Immediately the complainant informed about it to the opposite parties and submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1. The damaged stock value is Rs.5,02,847/-. The surveyor also estimated the loss. The complainant received a letter from opposite party No.1 stating that as per the surveyors report he is entitled only Rs.39,900/-. The complainant insured the stock for Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant insured the shop under the shopkeepers insurance policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/00000012 for the period from 27-04-2009 to 26-04-2010. On the information received from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 appointed Sri B.P.K.Reddy as surveyor to assess the loss. The said surveyor inspected the shop on 05-10-2009 and submitted his report assessing net loss at Rs.39,900/-. Opposite party No.1 offered the said amount to the complainant, but the complainant refused to receive the same. There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.2 is nowhere concerned for settlement of the insurance claim. The complainant is entitled for assured amount from opposite party No.1. It is the sole responsibility of opposite party No.1 to settle the claim. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B14 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed. RW1 is examined.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is doing textiles Business in the name and Style of M/s Green Textiles, Abdulla Khan Estate, Kurnool. The complainant hypothecated the stock in trade to opposite party No.2 bank and obtained loan. The stock in trade was insured with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A1 policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/00000012 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was valid from 27-04-2009 to 26-04-2010. It is the case of the complainant that the stock in trade was damaged due to floods on 02-10-2009 and that it was informed to opposite party No.1. The complainant to show that the stock in the shop was damaged due to floods relied on Ex.A5 certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool. It is mentioned in Ex.A5 that the complainant shop was badly affected with flood water on 02-10-2009. Admittedly on intimation given by the complainant, opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor and the surveyor after inspecting the complainant shop submitted Ex.B4 report. It is stated by the surveyor that the stock in the shop of the complainant was partly damaged due to flood water on 02-10-2009.
8. It is the case of the complainant that the stock in trade was insured for Rs.4,00,000/-, that the stock worth Rs.5,02,847/- was damaged and that is entitled an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party No.1. On behalf of opposite party No.1 Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 survey reports are marked. In Ex.B4 report the surveyor has stated that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.36,000/-. In Ex.B5 addendum report the surveyor has stated that the complainant sustained net loss of Rs.40,000/-. It is also stated in Ex.B4 by the surveyor that the total stock available as on the date of the floods is Rs.3,6,450/-. Where as in Ex.B5 the surveyor has stated that the total stock available on the date of floods is Rs.5,02,847/-. The same surveyor filed two reports Ex.B4 and Ex.B5. Ex.B4 report was submitted by the surveyor at an earliest point of time where in he clearly stated that on verification he came to know that the total stock available on the date of the floods is Rs.3,67,450/-. Therefore Ex.B4 report of the surveyor can be given much weight compared to Ex.B5 regarding stock position. The report of the surveyor must be given due weight. It is stated by the surveyor that the insured shop was inundated and flood water raised up to 1 to 2 feet from the shop floor. According to the surveyor the entire stock in the shop was not damaged. It is stated by the surveyor 25% of the stock in the shop was affected in the flood. 25% of Rs.3,67,450/- comes to Rs.91,862.50Ps. The surveyor deducted Rs.46,000/- towards salvage from Rs.92,000/-. The surveyor did not mention the reasons for deducting RS.46,000/- towards salvage value. RW1 is no other than the surveyor who filed Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 reports. In his evidence he clearly stated that there was stock worth Rs.3,67,450/- in the shop on the date of the flood. In the report Ex.B4 it is clearly mentioned that the complainant informed that he sold the semi damaged stock for Rs.12,500/-. RW1 the surveyor in his evidence also stated that the complainant told him that he sold the damaged stock worth Rs.12,500/-. The deducting of 50% from Rs.92,000/- towards salvage value by the surveyor is not just and reasonable. There is no basis in deducting 50% of the flood damaged stock towards salvage value. According to the complainant the salvage value is only Rs.12,500/-. The said amount has to be deducted from Rs.92,000/-. The net loss comes to Rs.79,500/-.
9. The surveyor in his report Ex.B4 clearly stated that the stock is adequately insured and there is no under insurance. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 that the stock is under insured by 20.45%. As already stated in Ex.B4 there is no mention that the sock is under insured. On the other hand the surveyor clearly stated that the stock is adequately insured. Therefore no amount can be deducted under the head under insurance. The surveyor assessed the loss arbitrarily by deducting 50% towards salvage value of the stock damaged. The complainant is entitled an amount of Rs.79,500/-. Opposite party No.1 has to pay the said amount to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.79,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order along with costs of Rs.500/-. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of March, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : RW1
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/00000012.
Ex.A2. Letter and settlement intimation voucher of
opposite party No.1 to complain
ant dated 22-07-2010.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant
for Rs.39,900/-dated 28-07-2010.
Ex.A4 Office copy of letter by complainant to opposite party No.1
dated 08-04-2010.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool
(Mandal & District) dated 24-10-2009.
Ex.A6 Office copy of letter by complainant to opposite party No.1
dated 04-03-2010 along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 Survey Report of Sri B.P.K.Reddy dated 05-10-2009.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Supplier wise statement of complainant.
Ex.A9 Office copy of sale letter dated 25-06-2010.
Ex.A10 A Bunch of Credit bills (Nos.42).
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/00000012
along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Letter by complainant to opposite party No.1
dated 05-10-2009.
Ex.B3 Office copy of Letter dated 21-10-2009 by opposite party No.1
to Surveyor.
Ex.B4 Survey Report of Sri B.P.K.Reddy assessing the damages to
the complainant along with photos (Nos.36) and
enclosures dated 03-06-2010.
Ex.B5 Survey Report of Sri B.P.K.Reddy to opposite party No.1
dated 19-07-2010.
Ex.B6 Claim note prepared by the opposite party No.1 for
Rs.39,900/- dated 21-07-2010.
Ex.B7 Letter addressed by the opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 22-07-2010.
Ex.B8 Letter by complainant to opposite party No.1 dated 27-07-2010.
Ex.B9 Letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to complainant for
Rs.39,900/- dated 28-07-2010.
Ex.B10 Letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to complainant
dated 09-09-2010.
Ex.B11 Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.B12 Letter addressed by complainant to opposite party No.1
dated 17-09-2010.
Ex.B13 Letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to
opposite party No.2 dated 31-03-2010.
Ex.B14 Postal Acknowledgment.
RW1 Deposition of Sri B.P.K.Reddy, Insurance Surveyor &
Loss Assessor dated 20-12-2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
