Kerala

Trissur

op/04/805

P. I. Jose - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A. D. Benny

16 Nov 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. op/04/805

P. I. Jose
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. P. I. Jose

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A. D. Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mariamma . K. Ittoop



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The case of complainant is as follows. The complainant had insured to the respondent his cinema theatre namely J.B. Talkies vide policy No.101202/11/01/04810. The complainant was running the talkies for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. The talkies was destroyed by fire on 19.2.02. Subsequently he approached the respondent for the claim. He had occurred a loss of Rs.16,00,000/-. So he is entitled to get Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondent. The respondent discharged the claim by giving   Rs.4,79,761/-. This amount is insufficient and the complainant is entitled for Rs.16,00,000/-. So the complainant was issued a lawyer notice but the matter is not settled so far. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The averments in counter are as follows: The respondent admits that they have issued a fire policy in the name of M/s. J.B. Talkies vide policy No.101202/11/11/16/4810/01 covering the building for a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-, machinery and accessories Rs.7,15,000/-, furniture Rs.5,44,500/-. The coverage of the policy was from 20.4.2001 to 19.4.2002. The limit of liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The theatre was a building with walls built of thatched coconut leaves and cane except the projector room which was of pucca construction and was not damaged. The respondent denies that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. As soon as the claim is reported the respondent deputed surveyor and he conducted investigation and assessed the loss. He also submitted an addendum to survey report. He assessed the loss as Rs.4,96,961/-. The complainant settled the claim for Rs.4,79,761/- after deduction of policy excess of Rs.10,000/- and cost of fire fighting equipments of Rs.7200/-. This amount was agreed by the insured and he received the amount in full settlement of the claim. The complainant is not entitled to get the amount sought. There is no deficiency in service committed by the respondent. Hence dismiss.
 
            3. The points for consideration are:
(1)   Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondent?
(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.
 
            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 and oral testimony of PW1 on the part of complainant and Exts. R1 to R10 and oral testimony of RW1 on the part of respondent.
 
            5. Points: The case is filed by the complainant for realization of amount of Rs.11,20,239/-. The case of complainant is that the cinema theatre of complainant was destroyed by fire and he sustained a loss of Rs.16,00,000/- and claim is submitted to the respondent but a voucher is sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.4,79,761/- and that amount is not sufficient. 
 
            6. The respondent filed counter and admitted the policy. The company contended that the complainant’s theatre was a building with walls built of thatched coconut leaves and cane except the projector room which was of pucca construction and was not damaged. The surveyor K.U. Varunny who was deputed by the company to assess the loss submitted a report by assessing the loss as Rs.4,96,961/-.
 
            7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. P1 is marked. According to PW1, he is entitled to get the amount shown in the quotations which are marked as Exts. R5 and R6. He also claims the estimated amount stated in Ext. R4. According to him, he is entitled for the amount stated in the quotations submitted. But quotations are not authoritative documents stating the real value. He did not even engage any other surveyor to inspect the premises and assess the loss. He deposed during cross-examination that he had met with another surveyor but he told that he will not survey because another surveyor is conducting the investigation. He did not even remember the name of that another surveyor. If he has serious disagreement with the surveyor’s report he had to seek alternative way to assess the loss. The present complaint was filed on 2004 July. The date of incident was on 19.2.02. There is no other reliable document except Ext. R1. The complainant simply stated that he is entitled for Rs.16,00,000/- and also depends Exts. R4 to R6. But no cogent evidence produced. He also deposed during cross-examination that estimates are preparing only to show an approximate expenditure. He states that Ext. R4 to R6 are the quotations for proposed new theatre. But so far new theatre is not constructed and no evidence brought in this regard.
 
            8. The surveyor who was examined as RW1 explains in detail the observations made by him. He reported that there was nothing remaining in the auditorium except half burnt teakwood posts used as pillars for the building and for the truss work for the roof. There were no remains of the thatched roof. The roof had completely burnt away. But the A/C roof of the cabin was not found affected much. He also reported that there was not much visible damage on the projector and the rewinding unit. Thus he elaborately described the position of the damaged premises at that time. But the loss assessed by him is Rs.4,97,076/- as per Ext. R1. He filed Ext. R2 an addendum to survey report and assessed the total compensation to be paid as Rs.4,96,961/-. The net admissible loss stated as per Ext. R2 is Rs.4,82,550/-. But the company paid an amount of Rs.4,79,761/-.  An amount of Rs.7200/- assessed towards cost of fire fighting equipments because that item is not covered by the policy and also reduced an amount of Rs.10,000/- as policy excess. 
 
            9. According to the Company, the complainant has received the amount with full satisfaction without any protest. They also stated that the complainant agreed for this amount after detailed discussion with the Divisional Manager and they produced a letter dated 18.12.02 and it is marked as Ext. R7. Ext. R7 is a letter sent by the Company to the complainant. It shows that the Company informed the complainant about the depreciation applied for various items can be reconsidered if sufficient evidence of replacement or renewal of the item produced by the complainant. But nothing was produced by the complainant and he has no case that he has produced and refused by the company. There is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove that he has sustained more than the loss paid by the complainant. There is no evidence from the complainant about the assessment of loss sustained to him. There is no objection to Ext. R1 report. He claims Rs.16,00,000/- in total. After reducing the amount paid by the Company the complainant seeks Rs.11,20,239/-. But there is no evidence brought by the complainant to enable him to this amount. As per Ext. R1 entire furniture were destroyed. But the complainant did not produce any purchase bills. The deposition of PW1 does not contain the cost of materials incurred to him to construct the theatre.   So we are unable to allow the amount seeks by him. The complainant miserably failed to prove his case and liable to dismiss. 
 
            10. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of November 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S