Monday the  30^th   day of November  , 2011

in

between

 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                       

The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows:-The complainant availed an insurance policy for his residential building from the opposite party. On 24^th or 25^th November 2009 a coconut frond fell on the complainant’s residence and the house got damaged. At the material time, the policy was in force. To repair the damage caused an amount of Rs.1110/-(Rupees One thousand one hundred and Ten only ) was required. The complainant preferred a claim for the said amount from the opposite party. The opposite party on unreasonable grounds repudiated the complainant’s claim. The complainant sustained a loss of Rs.15000/ -( Rupees Fifteen thousand only ) due to the non-revamp of the damage of the residential building. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief. Notice served. The opposite party turned up and filed version. The crux of the opposite party’s contention is that the damage the complainant’s house sustained is not covered by the material policy. According to the opposite party, as per the policy the damage directly occurs from cyclone, tornado etc alone could attract the benefit of the policy. No damage is caused to the complainant. The opposite party does not commit deficiency of service. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the  opposite party, the opposite party forcefully contends.

The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents  marked as Exbts AI& A2. On the side of  the opposite party, Exbt B 1 to B5 were marked .

Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that arise before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the damage to the complainant’s house was caused by the falling   `                of coconut foliage?

                        (b) If yes, whether the said damage is covered by the material policy?

(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?

We went through the materials available on record. It appears that the policy is not disputed. It also appears that the damage the complainant’s house sustained or the manner in which the same occurred has not been seriously challenged by the opposite party. What is forcefully contended is that the damage the complainant’s residential building sustained is not covered by the policy the complainant availed. With this contention in mind, we meticulously perused the conditions of the policy. On a close scrutiny of the same it seems that the policy is one for covering all sorts of damage that emanate naturally. The policy will be meaningless if it is interpreted in the way the opposite party did. It sounds strange rather unrealistic to construe as if the policy is covered only to the accidents caused due to cyclone, Tornado etc. As we have already observed, the opposite party has not seriously challenged the nature of the damage or the manner in which the same is caused. In this context, the contention of the opposite party does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. Needless to say, going by the entirety, the complainant case sounds probable and merit acceptance.

6. In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the opposite party is directed to payout to the complainant an amount of Rs.1110/-(Rupees One thousand one hundred  and ten) with 9% interest from the date of the complaint till the recovery of the said    amount. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only ) and a cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.

The complaint is allowed accordingly .

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th  day of  November   2011.

                                                                                                 Sri.Jimmy Korah

                                                                                                 Sri.K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                  Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi

 

 

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext. A1   -           Insurance form dated 26/11/2009 to 25/11/2019

Ext.A2    -          Letter dated 26.07.2011 given to complainant by opposite party

 

          Ext.B1    - Insurance Form dated 26/11/2009 to 25/11/2019

          Ext.B2  -   Insurance Forum

         Ext.B3 - Claim Form dated 26/07/2011

         Ext.B4 - Dated 25/07/2011

         Ext.B5 –Letter dated 26.07.2011