By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant is the managing partner of Sangamam Residency in R.S 205/03 of Trikkandiyoor Village, Thazhepalm,Tirur which is a residence lodge on the left bank of Tirur- Ponnani River at Thazhepalam, Tirur. The building has got 13 rooms and one Meeting Hall. The building has a varandha on the northern side which open to the river side. The varandha is given a roof protection, giving a weather shade with support of truss work. Varandha is used for serving food to the guest in the meeting hall.
2. The complainant had availed loan from State Bank of India, Tirur Branch, Thazhepalam for the construction of the building. The bank insisted to take insurance from SBI General Insurance Company limited and the first premium amount was given by the bank from the loan amount. The value of the building was assessed by the bank and the policy amount also decided by them. The policy number issued as 6640869-01 and the policy was valid while filing this complaint.
3. In the year 2018 during, Monsoon season all rivers in Kerala swelled and there was an unexpected, unusual rain and resultantly suffered flood and deluge. Tirur- Ponnani river also swelled and resultantly caused much damage to the building. The building is situated on the southern bank of Tirur River at Thazepalam. The force of water was beyond anybody’s imagination or comprehension. The water entered in the building and ground floor and the northern varandha and all other structures were completely immersed and submerged in water for 3 days. So, the varandha and courtyard hall detached from the building. There a big gap was formed and a crack was developed in between the courtyard and the building. Underneath of the varandha tanks were constructed for keeping waste water, septic tanks, etc. All the banks were filled up with mud and water. Tanks were damaged completely. Every tank had to be reconstructed and other wise complainant will not be able to run his establishment. The business was stopped for some days and the meeting hall was not rented out. The rooms were not rented out. Hence building re-construction was done after removing mud and other waste accumulated in the meeting hall. Tapestries removed and new once were fixed. The water entered in to the stand by generator set placed on the western edge of the varandha. The generator was totally immersed in water and it was damaged also. The generator set had to be immediately removed from the site to the nearest other building which cannot be lifted without the help of others since, the generator set is connected to the building by cable wire ducts and other electrical fittings. Hence everything was dismantled and subsequently re-fixed.
4. The weather shade and many portions of the building were damaged. The electric panel board of the building was completely damaged. Since it was immersed in water the entire things had to be dismantled and replaced. Many wirings were also replaced. The carpet inside the meeting hall was completely lost when the varandha and court hall together had developed crack. The entire steps of the varandha were lost. The steps were actually given granite tile top. That was also lost along with some other movable items. There were 15 tables used for serving food and some chairs were also lost. The weather shade was given with very costly sheets. When there was heavy rain and wind, the moorings and fixing were not helpful and petitioner could see that those sheets were flying aloft. The entire weather sheets were lost. In total complainant suffered a loss around Rs.5,00,000/- in the incident. The policy covered for a total amount of Rs.1, 80,00,000/-.
5. Immediatly after the flood without losing even a single day the complainant contacted the manager of the bank and demanded insurance amount as per the policy. The Complainant preferred a claim before the SBI General insurance company limited and the claim number was 586431 dated 25/10/2018. The claim of the complainant was for Rs.4, 53,928/-. Since there was no reply, a letter was issued to SBI general insurance company limited on 07/11/2018, but there was no reply. Later one Mr. Madhu Aeran, an engineer inspected the site. After his inspection a copy of report was given to the complainant and his assessment was for Rs.1,42,052.48/-. Dissatisfied with the report complainant issued a letter to Mr. Madhu Aeran on 01/12/2018. Most of the assessment of the engineer was absolutely wrong and was against common sense. Mr. Madhu Aeran claimed to be a valuever and survey loss assessor. The complainant had given a list showing his liquidated damages with support of documents and photographs. The concerned village officer also certified that complainant suffered huge loss.
6. As per the report of the loss assessor, the generator set arrangement expenses were not liable to be granted. The reason for the same was that the plant and missionary has not covered as per the policy. The complainant submit that his claim was not for the damage sustained for generator set. The generator set was fixed permanently at the place in the building and when the water entered in to the generator set it has to be removed to some other place. There was cable, switch board interconnect, earth wire, etc. The removal of the generator set and shifting was necessary to abate damage. The complainant suffered huge expenditure for the same. The generator set is being heavy, cannot be simply carried by a man or some people, manually. It weighs thousands of kilos and cannot be easily removed. Water was rising by every minute and the removal of generator to safer location was highly required and if that was not done the lost would have 10 to 15 lakh rupees. Service of licensed contractor was required for removal of the generator set to a safer location. Hence the complainant submit that he is legally entitled to the claim amount.
7. The report of the surveyor states that the value of the building as 1, 31, 88,960/- and after depreciation it will come to Rs.1, 16, 06,284/-. The total cost of the building was really assessed by the bank and not by the complainant. The total value was assessed by the bank as Rs.1,80,00,000/-. The bank collected premium for the same. The complainant submit that the bank assessed value of the building as Rs.1,80,00,000/- and the premium was collected for the amount. The cost of the building was assessed by the bank and the premium was also fixed by them since the bank financed the construction. The complainant submits that for about last 10 years the premium is collected from the complainant as per the said cost of the building. The complainant submits that if the cost of the building is insured value, the insurer has to explain what are the things which are exempted or avoided from the insurance. The Submission of the complainant is that all the things available in the building are insured and so the complainant is legally entitled for the compensation for the loss of each and every item of the building. The premium was fixed by the bank and paid through the bank. The premium amount was collected all the basis of assessment of Rs.1,80,00,000/- for the building. The complainant submits the report of Mr. Madhu Aeran cannot be accepted at all. The report of Mr. Madhu Aeran excluded demolition charges, debris removal and construction of new drain pits since they are new proposals. The engineer did not consider paving tiles stating it as a new proposal. The submission of the complainant is that heavy damage occurred to the building and other structures and so removal and re-structuring of the building is necessary, otherwise the functioning of the building cannot be revived. The complainant submits that when the water entered in to the premises and started flow in a gush, the earth from the side was eroded, so the earth adjoining the building was separated and cracks were developed, wider pits formed, water tanks and other tanks available were completely filled up with mud and debris, the retention wall available on the side of river constructed by the complainant was completely damaged and destroyed, drain pits were completely gone. It is submitted that unless retention wall is constructed the whole building will be lost. When the building is insured the safety of the building is the main concern and the loss has to be compensated. The loss includes loss of earth, varandha , court hall, weather sheet and retention wall. If the building cannot be protected there is no meaning in having any insurance. If the building is not re constructed, the building cannot be put to use and resultantly municipality will not allow to resume the business. Hence the submission of the complainant is that declining the claim of complainant by the insurance company is not at all sustainable.
8. The complainant submit that the surveyor was not considered weather sheets, removal of the surface mud and cleaning hand railing’s, river side weather shade canopy, retention wall etc. The complainant issued a letter to the surveyor against assessing the amount as Rs.1,43,052/-. But there was no response from his side. Later the complainant received a letter from Mr. Suresh Anaparthi, senior manager, commercial claims, SBI General insurance company limited, dated 11/03/2019 demanding cancel cheque leaf and telephone bill. The complainant sends objections that the complainant will accept Rs.1, 43,052/-rupees on protest and without prejudice, but no reply was received from SBI General insurance company limited. Thereafter on 22/04/2019 lawyer notice was sent and on 11/06/2019 a reply was received through a lawyer stating that an amount of Rs.1, 32,793/- is credited to the loan account of the complainant on 12/03/2018. The amount was credited to the loan account of the complainant and the complainant was used to make payment to the loan account regularly. The complainant had intimated by registered letter that the payment will be accepted only under protest and without prejudice and the submission of the complainant is that he is entitled to file this complaint to realize the compensation. The submission of the complainant is that the opposite party have no right to decline the entire claim but bound to pay sum of Rs.4,53,928/- to the complainant. The complainant submitted that due to the defective service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant suffered much mental agony, inconvenience and hardship. The complainant was caused to avail loan to restart the business and he spent huge amount for the same. The complainant claims Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered by him.
9. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations.
10. The opposite party submitted that they have no “branch office” within the jurisdiction of this consumer commission and as per Consumer Protection act 1986 section 11 (2) it is necessary that the opposite party should reside/ have branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the commission to invoke its jurisdiction, whereas the opposite party have no branch office in the district of Malappuram and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary score itself. The opposite party also contended that the complainant is engaged in business activity, further the complaint is filed by the complainant in his official capacity being the managing partner of the business entity, sangamam residency, thus a commercial purpose. A commercial purpose is expressly excluded by the act from the purview of (consumer) as per section 2 (d) (ii). The opposite party also contended that the complaint is misconceived one, untenable and unwarranted since the policy only covers the “building including the plinth and foundation” since evident in policy schedule itself. It is also submitted that the complainant claiming for improvement to the existing structures whereas the insurance policy meant for indemnification of loss only. Being improvements related claims are nothing but an action intending windfall from misfortune. The attempt of the complainant through this unwarranted claim is only meant to harass the opposite party and syphon insurance money. The opposite party submitted that the claim of the complainant was duly settled by the opposite party as per the assessment of the statutory surveyor and the policy terms and conditions and so there is no bonofide cause of action.
11. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had taken a SME package insurance policy from the answering opposite party, insurance company covering the risk of “building including plinth and foundation“ in the specified risk location in schedule or a sum insured of 1,80,00,000/-. The policy certificate number was 6640869 for the period 29/06/2017 to 27/06/2018, which do not provide the coverage against content and stock. The claim was intimated by the complainant belatedly on 26/10/2018 alleging damage to the insured property on 17/08/2018 and even then, without any prejudice to the delay and the resultant violation of policy conditions, the opposite party appointed an independent statutory surveyor. The statutory surveyor Mr. Madhu Aeran bearing license number SLA 50860/95 assessed the loss and submitted his report dated 08/02/2019 and his net loss assessment was Rs.1,43,052/-. The opposite party deducted the policy excess of Rs.1,00,00/- and finally after the adjustment of the reinstatement premium of Rs.260, and settled the claim for an amount of Rs.1, 32, 793/-.
12. The opposite party submitted one schedule regarding the surveyor’s assessment for the reference of the commission. It is submitted that generator set removal and re-arrangement expenses were not considered by the surveyor since under the policy coverage is only for building and the generator does not come with in the purview of the building. It is also not seen in the “contents “. It is also stated the damage to the generator was not noticed by the surveyor but the expense is only incurred for shifting alone. Dismantling and removing of debris as per the policy limit is 1% of the claim amount irrespective of the actual claim. It is submitted that drain pit claim was allowed to repair the existing but not allowed fresh construction of pit for 240x120x120. The report also allowed retainer wall construction. The report considered laying of tiles, granite slab, plumbing and sanitary work rear side toilet were allowed. Platform for generator was disallowed since it was an improvement which is beyond the scope of policy. It is considered industrial work i.e., repairing and replacing hand rails and also sheet replacing and roof repair. But river side extension sheet was not allowed since no loss seen noted. Bore well motor carpet and dining table was not considered since they do not come under the term building.
13. The submission of the opposite party is that the surveyor has duly worked out the loss and the complainant has not brought any material on record to disprove the assessment of the surveyor. The submission of the opposite party is that complainant is only making baseless blind folded contentions and there is no IOTA of evidence to substantiate his claim. The submission of the opposite party is that the assessment is done by an independent statutory surveyor duly licensed by IRDA and being a member of professional association IIISLA, due credence needs to be assigned to their assessment of loss . The submission is that the local inflated bill prepared by the complainants should be brushed aside and is put to strict proof of the document.
14. The submission of the opposite party is that survey report is an important document and the same shall not be brushed aside in the absence of any material infirmity. It is submitted that a survey’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise, which the complainant failed to do in this complaint. It is also submitted that it is the well settled position of law in catena of judgments that the policy terms and conditions should be strictly construed. So, the submission of the opposite party is that the claim of the complainant was duly settled by the statutory surveyor’s report and according to the policy and so there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined under the consumer protection act 1986 and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
15. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A33. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. The insurance surveyor Mr. Madhu Aeran examined as Dw1.
16. Heard both side perused affidavit and documents. Both side filed brief notes of argument also. Following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the loss sustained by the complainant is covered by the policy?
- What is the extent of damage?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
5) Relief and cost?
17. Point No.1
The opposite party contended that there is no branch office within in the jurisdiction of the commission and the complaint is engaged in business activity which is apparently a commercial purpose and also there is condition for arbitration as per policy, the dispute is with respect to quantum and the assessment was made with the consent of complainant.
18. It can be seen that the subject matter building involved in this complaint situate at Tirur which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The policy was issued by the opposite party through the intermediary, state bank of India, branch Tirur which is also within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. The dispute between the complainant and opposite party is with respect to insurance coverage and not related with the business of the complainant and the insurance coverage is not at all related to any sort of commercial purpose but only to indemnify the loss of the insured. The complainant had never consented for the assessment as per any document. The consumer Protection Act has specifically stated that the insurance service comes under the purview of consumer protection act and the commission has got jurisdiction where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. So, in this complaint there is no merit in the contention of the opposite party regarding the jurisdiction of this Commission and we decide the first point accordingly.
19. Point No.2
The opposite party admit that they had issued SME package insurance policy to the complainant covering the risk of “building including plinth and foundation “in the specified risk location in policy schedule for a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. The policy certificate number is 6640869 for the period 29/06/2017 to 27/06/2018 subject to the terms and conditions. But the contention of the opposite party is that the coverage against content and stock are “zero“. The insurance surveyor assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy and it was allowed to the complainant in due time also. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the claim of the complainant as prayed in the complaint and as per the claim form was disallowed solely because of non-coverage as per the policy condition. According to the opposite party what is covered under the policy is the risk of “building including plinth and foundation” and no coverage against content and stock. The complainant produced Ext. A2 and the opposite party produced Ext. B1 to show the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per the insurance policy schedule it is stated that the article / building involved in this complaint is hypothecated / mortgaged to as per annexure “B” and schedule of property covered as per annexure “A” attached with the schedule. As per annexure “A” location wise details it is provided that type of asset as “building including plinth and foundation and asset description as residency – commercial building (plant and machinery)” and sum insured as Rs.1,80,00,000/-. It is also noted therein annexure “A” fire and allied perils add- on cover description as “RSM D cover Rs.1,80,00,000/-, STFI cover 1,80,00,000/-, earth quake cover (fire and shock) Rs.1,80,00,000/-, terrorism damage cover – not covered “. The perusal of the annexure “B” reveals the hypothecation details that the building is hypothecated with SBI Tirur Main branch. Now the question is whether building including plinth and foundation and residency – commercial building (plant and machinery) will reveal any difference. It can be seen that annexure “A” the asset description is specifically described as the insured article / building is a residency commercial building and so there is plant and machinery. But the schedule does not describe what are the part of plant and what are machinery. The specific case of complainant is that the building is a standard comfortable residential lodge with 13 rooms and with meeting hall and also with varandha open to the river side. The varnadha was given roof protection giving a weather shade with support of truss work and the same was used for serving food to the gust in the meeting hall. So the perusal of policy schedule what is insured is sangamam residency a building designed as standard comfortable residential lodge. So what is to be insured interest is the building as described in the schedule. The building includes amenities which are integral part of the building. All the amenities are described in the complaint affected by the flood which are inevitable part of the building. Hence the approach of the insurance company that the insurance policy covered only building and plinth area alone cannot be accepted. The schedule “A” as part of the policy described the asset description as “residency commercial building plant and machinery”.
20. The basic principle of insurance is to indemnify the interest of the insurer. In this complaint the interest of the complainant is to indemnify the loss any sustained to the residential lodge and for that purpose availed the insurance policy. The complainant approached the state bank of India Tirur branch and as per their instruction the insurance policy was availed from the opposite party and it is clear from the Ext. B1 that the state bank of India Tirur branch is the intermediary. It is also revealed that the insured amount is Rs. 1,80,00,000/- and the premium was assessed accordingly. The valuation of the building is the basis for preparing premium amount and the premium is collected for the building valued Rs.1,80,00,000/-. The complainant also stated that he is renewing the policy for the last several years. The opposite party had not taken any steps to value the building asset at their initiative. Hence it can be inferred that the building value was estimated as and the premium was collected accordingly. The policy covers not only the building and plinth area but includes the plant and machinery. So we hold that the policy issued in favor of the complainant covers the damage sustained to the building and also the machineries there in. It is also pertinent to not that annexure “A” does not reveal asset description in detail i.e., plant and machinery.
21. Ext. A2 SME package insurance policy has stated what are covered and what are excluded. Section 1 of the standard fire and special perils reveals what is covered under fire lightening and also what are excluded there in. But nowhere it is specific whether the articles involved in this complaint has been excluded. In the absence of specific exclusion clause with respect to the articles involved in this complaint we hold that this policy covers the damage sustained to the complainant and the second point is answered accordingly.
22. Points No.3,4and 5
It is to be noted that the building involved in 2018 August flood wherein all rivers in Kerala swelled due to un expected rain and resultantly there was flood and deluge. The water entered in the building and the ground floor and the northern varandha and all other structures were completely immersed and submerged in water for three days. The varandha and courtyard of the building detached from the building. There was crack formed between the courtyard and the building. The flood was affected waste water tanks, septic tank and all filled with mud and water. Weather shade, electrical panel board, permanently fixed carpet inside the hall, steps, tables more than 15 for serving food, roof protection truss work, building safety retention wall, generator etc. were totally affected as result of the flood. The complainant submitted that when building is insured the safety of the building is the main concern and so if the structures affected by the flood are not reconstructed there is no question of protection of the building. The insurance is availed to protect the building and to indemnify the insurer.
23. The complainant immediately approached the financier state bank of India, Tirur and they in turn informed the opposite party about the loss. But there is a short delay in communicating the loss sustained to the complainant before the opposite party, which is a lapse on the part of state bank of India, Tirur branch. But it is being condoned by the opposite party the issue of delay does not arise. The opposite party on receipt of information deputed surveyor Mr. Madhu Aeran to assess the loss sustained to the complainant. As per his report it can be seen the incident occurred on 14/08/2018 and his appointment was on 16/11/2018 and his survey procedure was on 19/11/2018. So, it can be seen that as per his report he inspected the property after three months of the incidents and at that time the damage sustained were already repaired but he could peruse certain photographs regarding the incident. He has reported that front side bore well motor damage, generator set was shifted from the premises to the nearby plot which leased by the insured to prevent generator from the flood damage, two drain pit collapsed, rear side retaining wall along with steps collapsed, tiles near the drain pits and the granites provided for steps and the man hole of the yard broken and damaged, plumping and sanitary work affected and damaged, rear side toilet fittings affected and damaged, inside auditorium steps broken and damaged, reception carpet wet and damaged, electrical panel board cleaning, 13 numbers of dining table kept outside of the auditorium those were washed away. The surveyor assessed admissible amount as Rs.1,43,052.48/-. He also assessed repair work conducted by the insured to the building and integral part of the building which damaged due to the incident on the basis of the repair work conducted by the insured as Rs.1,62,086/-. So, the perusal of the Ext. B3, the surveyor has disallowed the claim of the complainant Rs.4,53,928/- stating some of the repair work and damaged articles of the complainant are not covered by the policy and not integral part of the building. The surveyors report disallowed the expenses incurred for shifting the generator, cost for fresh construction of pit expenses, for constructing platform for generator, river side extension sheet, bore well motor, permanently fixed damaged carpet, dining table etc. But the insurance coverage includes plant as well as machinery as per annexure “A” asset description. It can be seen that the building involved is one multi storied residential lodge and so all the items mentioned in Ext. B3 surveyors’ assessment are inevitable part of the building for the beneficial use of the same. As per the surveyors assessment Ext.B3 the following items are seen disallowed or partially allowed. The report disallowed dismantling debris from the pit worth Rs.4,200/-. The report not allowed constructing expenses of new pit of size 240 x120x200 cm including cover slab claim worth Rs.20,939/-. The report did not consider dismantling the existing damaged steps worth claim of Rs.1,400/-. The claim for laying tiles of size 30x30 in yard was Rs.13,000/- but allowed only Rs. 8875/-. The claim for laying granite slabs for man hole cover was Rs.9,750/- but allowed only Rs. 6,750/-. The claim for repairing the damaged toilet on rear side of stage was Rs.12,000/- but allowed only Rs. 5,000/-. The claim for constructing foundation for generator was Rs.10,800/- but it was not allowed. The claim for sheet replacement river side was Rs.19,250/- but the same was not allowed. The claim for repairing and replacing hand rail cost claim was Rs.16,500/- but allowed only 10,000/-. The claim for sheet replacing and repair of roof was Rs. 6,800/- but that was not allowed. The claim for bore well motor was Rs.13,450/-, was not allowed. The claim for permanently fixed carpet was Rs.12,628/-, which was also not allowed. Surface mud cleaning labor cost claimed as Rs.8,200/- was not allowed. The claim for 13 numbers of dining table for Rs.23,400/- was not allowed. So as per the claim of the complainant the total assessment of damage is Rs.4,63,728/- and the surveyor assessed Rs.1,62,086/- as compensation. More over the surveyor considered depreciation at the rate 12% and salvage value as Rs.1,000/- and also considered 1% debris removal expenses and so the net liability as per surveyor is only Rs.1,43,052/-. So, it can be seen that there is considerable difference in calculation by the complainant and the insurance surveyor. It is already stated that the insurance coverage is for building and plinth area according to the opposite party, but the annexure “A” shows that it is for residential commercial building plant and machinery. No separate schedule is attached to show exactly what is covered and not covered. No separate inventories were made by the opposite party at the time of issuing the insurance policy. Some items are excluded as per section 1 of the policy. But there are no specific exclusions with respect the building insured in this complaint. As everybody knows, a building includes wall, windows, flooring, stair case, handrail, roofing, tiling, trusswork etc. When somebody availing an insurance policy for the building it is not common to enlist the articles inside the building i.e., the each and every part of the building. In this complaint itself, it can be seen that the surveyor has considered expense for the handrail, step repairing work in hall to the stage, laying granite slabs like things. It is also to be noted that the surveyor has not considered any amount against dismantling certain parts which is highly necessary to reconstruct damaged steps. The basis for the approach is that as per terms what is to be allowed is only 1% of the total expense as debris removal. Since there is specific clause regarding the debris removal expense as per terms in the policy, the surveyor strictly adhered to the same. But the disallowing attitude for the expenses for the reconstruction of the damaged articles and loss cannot be treated as a fair approach on the part of the opposite party and the surveyor and so we find the complainant is entitled for the following amounts as part of the claim. It is to be noted that the opposite party has got a contention when there is an assessment by a competent surveyor and loss assessor it cannot be ignored without sufficient reason. But the complainant has rightly stated that the report of the surveyor is not at all a sacrosanct and sometimes the reports designed as tailor made report. In this complaint the complainant produced documents A1 to A33 which substantiate the contentions of the complainant. Ext. A7 is with respect to diesel generator set re arrangement and connected electrical work expenses. As per Ext. A7 the expense he incurred is Rs.1,50,000/-. The surveyor has dishonored the claim for the diesel generator set re arrangement. It is to be noted that it is highly inevitable machinery for the fruit full and effective enjoyment of the building. It is also surprising to not that the surveyor disallowed bore well motor expense which is erected inside the building. It is also interesting to note that the surveyor has admitted carpet which is permanently fixed has been damaged. But he disallowed the claim. The surveyor assessed 1% debris removal expense as Rs.1,416/- whereas the claim of the complainant for surface mud cleaning is Rs.8,200/- and dismantling debris from pit as Rs.4,200/-. The surveyor also disallowed expense for new pit expense of Rs.20,939/-. We have to see that already there was two pits and it was damaged in the incident of flood. The surveyor considered expense for earth work excretion from the pit. But the flood caused damages to the existing pit and which required constructing a new pit with cover slab and for that the complainant spent Rs.20,939/-. Hence considering the entire aspects in the matter we cannot uphold the assessment of the surveyor and so we consider the following amounts also to be allowed to the complainant.
1) Dismantling debris from pit Rs.4,200/-
2) Construction of pit which is inevitable for the safety of the building
worth Rs.20,939/-
3) Separate dismantling expenses Rs.1,400/-
4) The difference of cost for laying tiles and allied work that is (13000 -
8875) Rs.4,125/-
5. Laying granite slab for manhole cover difference amount (9750-
6750) Rs.3,000/-
6. Difference in toilet repair work (12000-5000) Rs.7,000/-
7. Expenses for foundation for generator Rs. 10,800/-
8. River side sheet replacement expense Rs.19,250/-
9. Handrail cost difference Rs.6,500/-
10. Sheet replacing and repair of roof Rs.6,800/-.
11. Bore well motor cost Rs.13,450/-
12. Carpet cost Rs.12,268/-
13. Surface mud cleaning expense Rs.8,200/-
14. Cost for the damaged tables Rs.23,400/-
15 Cost for the generator set removing and arranging along with allied electrical work Rs.1,50,000/-.
24. The total amount comes around Rs. 2,91,332/-. The documents produced by the complainant Ext. A1 to A33 substantiate the claim of the complainant. The opposite party has not challenged the veracity of the documents produced by the complainant but contended that they are not covered as per the insurance policy. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for the above said sum of Rs.2,91,332/-in addition to the amount which has been already transferred to the account maintained by the complainant with the state bank of India Tirur branch.
25. In this complaint immediately after the incident of flood contacted the bank SBI Tirur, from where he availed loan and also as intermediary directed the complainant to avail insurance coverage from the opposite party without any delay. The complainant is remitting premium amount for the insured sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- for the last around 10 years. But the surveyor assessed building value with different yard in turn according to the surveyor the cost of the building much less than the insured sum and as per his assessment, cost of construction of the building is only Rs.1,31,88,960/-and after depreciation of 12 years he assessed value as Rs.1,16,06284/-. But the opposite party collected premium from the complainant for the amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. Hence there is apparent deficiency in service both way in collecting premium amount which is not proportionate to the cost of the building and disallowing the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, we find that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled reasonable amount as compensation and also cost of the proceedings
26. In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows: -
1) The opposite party is directed to pay additional an amount of Rs.2,91,332/-to the complainant
2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant
as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the entire above amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint to till realization.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A33
Ext.A1: copy of notice with postal acknowledgement
Ext.A2: Copy of general insurance policy number 0000000006640869-01 dated 29/06/2018.
Ext A3: Photo copy of certificate from village officer Trikandiyour dated 26/11/2018.
Ext A4: copy of letter to the surveyor Mr. Madhu Aeran dated 01/12/2018
Ext A5: copy of lawyer notice dated 22/04/2019.
Ext. A6 copy of reply notice dated 16/05/2019.
Ext. A7 copy of invoice dated 28/11/2018.
Ext. A8 copy of voucher dated 28/11/2018.
Ext A9: copy of voucher dated 15/09/2018
Ext. A10 copy of voucher dated 02/09/2018
Ext. A11 copy of voucher dated 16/08/2018.
Ext. A12 copy of quotation dated 16/08/2018
Ext A13: copy of bill no date
Ext. A14 copy of voucher dated 29/08/2018
Ext. A15 voucher dated 04/09/2018.
Ext. A16 copy of voucher dated 15/09/2018
Ext A17: copy of voucher dated 19/09/2018
Ext. A18 copy f voucher dated 23/09/2018.
Ext. A19 copy of voucher dated 16/10/2018
Ext. A20 copy of estimate dated 25/08/2018
Ext A21: copy of quotation dated 27/08/2018.
Ext. A22 copy of voucher 28/09/2018.
Ext. A23 copy of voucher 10/10/2018
Ext. A24 copy of voucher 28/10/2018
Ext A25: copy of bill dated 28/10/2018
Ext. A26 copy of bill dated 30/08/2018
Ext. A7 copy of bill dated 29/10/2018
Ext. A28 copy of voucher dated 25/09/2018
Ext A529 copy of voucher dated 25/08/2018
Ext. A30 copy of voucher dated 25/08/2018
Ext. A31 copy of letter dated 20/02/2019
Ext. A32 insurance policy copy dated26/06/2019
Ext A33 photographs 14 in number no date
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of policy terms and conditions
Ext.B2: Copy of estimate of laws
Ext.B3: Flood final survey report by surveyor / loss assessor Mr. Madhu Aeran
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
