Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant is a farmer under OP No.2 who had purchased the policy for the cultivation of tobacco by the complainant and other members. The policy was purchased covering the period from 11.09.2004 to 10.09.2005 Midnight. It is alleged inter-alia that on 19.04.2005 at 10 AM the tobacco was burnt fully and damaged occurred due to spontaneous combustion inside the godown. Thereafter the matter was reported to Op No.1 who deputed the surveyor. The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.1,79,224.30 and it was made valuation of same of Rs.1,79,224.30. The insurance in question was made for fire and paris policy. The complainant did not agree with the amount of loss made by the surveyor. However, he was not paid any compensation. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.2 filed written version stating that there was damage to the crop by spontaneous combustion and there is no negligent on the part of the complainant. Also they have no any fault. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part on their part.
5. The OP No.1 admitted that they have got the policy purchased from them. They also admitted that they have deputed the surveyor and found that due to defective storage of tobacco there was damaged to the tobacco and thereby they are not liable to pay the cost of the tobacco. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
6. After hearing learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against Op No.1 and dismissed against OP No.3.
The OP No.1 shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,79,224.30 (Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand two hundred twenty four and paise thirty) under the Group Insurance Policy sponsored by OP No.2 towards the cost of the tobacco damaged in the spontaneous combustion together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of complaint till its payment.
In the circumstances of the case it is further ordered for payment of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation expenses.
The amount awarded be paid within two months from the date of order,failing which the complainant is at liberty to reaslise the same as per Sec.25 and 27 of the C.P.Act.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the surveyor’s report and the written version filed by them with proper perspectives. He submitted that the policy itself delites that at different stages of the damage of tobacco the sum assured has been mentioned. In the instant case maximum Rs.1,00,000/- has been assigned as sum assured but the learned District Forum has awarded Rs.1,79,224.30 which is not possible by the OP No.1 for the nature of the policy as stated above. Further he submitted that learned District Forum has awarded interest @ 12 % payable by the OP and it is in higher side. He further submitted that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that the crops were starts in a faulty procedure but not in accordance with the policy in question. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order being illegal and improper should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the complainant is a beneficiary and a poor farmer and has no leg to stand except the support of insurance compensation. According to him the insurance policy covers the amount awarded by the learned District Forum. Further he submitted that inspite of the reasons of fire i.e. spontaneous combustion the OP repudiated the claim. He submitted that spontaneous combustion is included covered by the policy by fire and peris. However, he submitted to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the impugned order.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a farmer duly engaged by OP No.1 & 2 to raise the tobacco crops and the godown is allotted by OP No.2. It is also not in dispute that the godown alongwith stock of tobacco having insured with Op no.1 at the instance of OP No.2 and during currency of the policy the tobacco was damaged due to spontaneous cumbuation. Now the question arises whether such dispute for damage of tobacco occurred due to faulty procedure storage as claimed by the OP. The report of the surveyor is not clear to show that due to faulty storage the fire took place. But it is clear from the evidence of the complainant that the fire took place due to spontaneous cumbustion which is covered under Fire and peris policy.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the occurrence of damage is covered under the policy purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 through OP No.2. Now question comes about quantum of damages. It is well settled in law that the surveyor’s report should be the basis for computing loss. It is clear from the surveyor report that there is loss of Rs.1,59,224/-. At the same time learned District Forum has awarded Rs.1,79,224.30 but the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the damage should be limited to the sum assured of the policy is a fundamental criteria to compute the loss. This principle is also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. On perusal of the policy it appears that each farmer is entitled to sum assured of Rs.1,30,000/-. Further it is also entitled to the damages occurred at different time. Damages has been occurred in the curing state and there is specific award of Rs.30,000/-. We find that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,30,000/- to the sum assured in the fact and circumstances of the case. The loss computed by the surveyor is found cover of but due to the principle it is limited to the sum assured. Therefore, we agree with award of the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-. Next question comes about the consideration of percentage of interest. It is stated that 12 % has been awarded by learned District Forum. Since, damages has been occurred at the curing state and it is a matter of 2007, we considered the submission and reduced the interest to 9 % from 12 %. Therefore, we hereby modify the impugned order by directing the Op to pay Rs.1,30,000/- with 9 % interest from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order remained unaltered.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
