By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for compensation on not paying the insured sum on the wreck of the house.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant constructed a house under the scheme of loan offered by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The house was insured earlier for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 10 years. The policy was later enhanced for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- that was on 28.06.2005. The policy conditions are such that any damages or calamities if caused to the house it would be compensated by the 1^st Opposite Party. In strong wind and rain on 23.08.2007 the structure of the house was almost destroyed and the Complainant had to spent Rs.3,71,780/- for repair and the cost of materials to build it in its earlier position. The Opposite Party gave Rs.60,514/- and Complainant received only 60,404/- deducting the bank commission. The expenses met by the Complainant for construction of the damaged building were not compensated and it is the violation of policy conditions. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,11,344/- along with interest at the rate of 12% till realisation of the amount and also with compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/-.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The insured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted an estimate of Rs.3,71,709/- for repair charges. But the value assured for the property is Rs.2,00,000/-. The Surveyor who inspected and submitted a report on the loss after deducting the salvage value and the depreciation as the policy conditions that is estimated only Rs.60,514/-. The Complainant was given Rs.60,514/- as a demand draft and that was forwarded to the Complainant on 24.11.2009. The entire sum assured in the policy is not liable to be paid by the Opposite Party. The claim is settled on the basis of conditions of insurance. The complaint filed is on experimental basis it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party also filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant availed earlier Rs.12,500/- as house loan for the construction of the house that was in 2009. The loan amount was waived of since the Complainant belonged to weak sector and the deed pledged was taken back by the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no connection or anyway clipped to the allegations of the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party in this case and the cause of action is incorrect. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 2^nd Opposite Party.

5. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant, Exts. A1 to A3 and B1. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party tendered no oral evidence to substantiate their contention.

7. The case of the Complainant is that a big tree uprooted and fell upon the house which was insured for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- initially. The house was insured for the sum of Rs.50,000/- later the sum assured was enhanced remitting an additional premium of Rs.332/- and the sum assured at present is Rs.2,00,000/-. The enhancement of sum insured is by adding additional assets evidenced by the document produced. The Complainant also tendered oral evidence in this case. The house which was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- was fully destroyed by the uprooting of tree and its fall upon the house. The house was thatched with tiles in support of rafters. The walls and other structures were also destroyed in this peril. The 1^st Opposite Party sanctioned Rs.60,514/- deducting the depreciation value and salvage value. The 1^st Opposite Party has insured the house and the premium was remitted in their account. The 2^nd Opposite Party is not having any previty of contract with the Complainant for the assured sum. The 1^st Opposite Party also tendered no evidence to substantiate their contention. The document produced by the 1^st Opposite Party are not  marked. It is to be considered that additional premium of Rs.332/- is received by the 1^st Opposite Party and the insurance sum is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.50,000/-. There is no evidence brought out by the 1^st Opposite Party in what respect the depreciation value and salvage value are considered for accounting the amount to Rs.60,514/-. Any how the house of the Complainant was constructed in 1997 and peril took place in the year 2007. The value of the house became subject to depreciation and the salvage value also to be deducted from the sum assured. The Complainant is entitled to get reasonable amount of the sum insured deducting depreciation value and salvage value anyhow nothing is brought in records how much the depreciation and salvage value in total comes.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards the sum insured excluding the initial payment of Rs.60,514/- (Rupees Sixty thousand Five hundred and Fourteen only) towards insured sum along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). This is to be complied by the 1^st Opposite Party within one month from the receipt of this order.

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

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Sarasamma Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Fire Policy A

A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:09.03.2007.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:15.12.2009.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Letter. dt:04.05.2007.