Date of filing : 07-04-2007 Date of order : 28-05-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 32/2007 Dated this, the 28th day of May 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Yusuf Kaleel, S/o.M.P.Abdulrahiman Haji, Moochi House, Hosbettu village, Po.Bangra-Manjeshwara, } Complainant Kasaragod. Represented by G.P.A. holder Abdulsathar, S/o.M.P.Abdulrahiman Haji, Moochi House, Hosbettu Village, Po.Bangra-Manjeshwara, Kasaragod (Adv.Shrikanta Shetty.K, Kasaragod) The Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite party High Lane Plaza, M.G.Road, Kasaragod.671 121. (Adv.M.Balagopalan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In nutshell the case of the complainant is as follows:- Complainant runs the shop Al-Ashmi Bakery and General Stores. It situated in shop room No.VI/502-D of Manjeshwar Panchayath. This shop room is insured with opposite party vide policy No.571101/48/4/9801638 under shop keepers Insurance Policy. It caught fire on 18-06-05 at about 10.30 P.M and the furniture and fixtures, Bakery items, refrigerator, stabilizer, mobile sim cards, IT card etc were guttered in fire. Complainant is incurred a loss of Rs.3,36,000/- due to the destruction of goods in the fire. The incident intimated to opposite party. Opposite party appointed a surveyor to assess the loss caused in the fire. However, opposite party repudiated the claim of complainant on various grounds. 2. According to opposite party the shop number shown in the policy is VI/502A of Manjeshwar Panchayath where the shop number shown in the licence issued by Manjeshwar Panchayath is 4/502D. The complainant had not sustained the loss as alleged. The insured is now employed abroad and he had no connection at present with the business. Therefore he had no insurable interest over the shop. Though the claim is filed alleging the cause of the fire as electrical short circuit, the K.S.E.B Officials ruled out this possibility. The surveyor assessed the damage only to the tune of Rs.104698/- by inspecting the fully burned stock and smoke affected goods. Abdul Sathar, brother of complainant who was managing the shop during the time of fire was not maintaining any books of accounts like day book, stock register etc. The surveyor could not verify whether the perished goods were date expired items or not. Due to the water pouring as an attempt to extinguish fire, most of the articles were damaged. In the shop actually there was no heavy out break of fire. Only very small quantities of goods were stocked in the show case. The list of articles furnished in the claim form are much more. The insured had no insurable interest over the shop room since he has not obtained ‘D’ and ‘O’ licence from Panchayath authorities for conducting the business. Further the damages caused to the business arose not on account of fire but due to pouring of water and blackening. Under the above circumstances the claim is repudiated. 3. Complainant’s power of attorney, his brother Abdul Sathar filed proof affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A6 marked. The Branch Manager of North Malabar Gramin Bank, Kunjathur branch is examined as PW2. Exts X1 and X2 marked. On the side of opposite party Exts. B1 to B4 marked. Both sides were heard and documents scrutinized. 4. The points to be determined in this complaint are:- 1) Whether the complainant had any insurable interest in the shop? 2) Whether there is any damages caused due to fire and if so what is the quantum? 3) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in repudiating the claim? 4) What is the order as to relief and costs? 5. Point No.1. Insurable Interest Complainant produced Ext.A1 shop keepers insurance policy issued by party to prove the factum of insurance. In Ext.A1 the insured’s name is A.M. YOUSUF, SOD 72/2000 (Bank Loan Number), Address of the shop is M/s AL-HASHMI, Bakery, VI/502A, Hosangadi, Manjeshwar. But the learned counsel for opposite party submitted that the actual number of the shop given by the Panchayath was 4/502 D and the same is not insured. Hence according to him the complainant had no insurable interest over shop No./502D that is guttered in fire. But the complainant produced Ext.A6 the extract of licence fee demand register kept in Manjeshwar Grama Panchayath during the period 2004-05. In Ext.A6 the shop room No.VI-502D is licensed to Yousuf Khaleel for running the shop Hashim Bakery. So it is clear that the discrepancy seen in the number of the shop room in the policy is only a clerical error and it will no way adverse to the insurable interest of the complainant. The further contention of opposite party is that the insured is now employed in Saudi Arabia and he has no connection at present with the business that is being carried out by his brother the PA holder. The shop has no valid D and O licence on the date of occurrence had transferred his right over the shop room to any one. Exts.A6 is the extract of license fee register of Manjeshwar Panchayath. That would goes to prove that the shop licence is still in the name of the complainant and he had the required licence to run the shop in the Panchayath. Hence the contention of opposite party that the complainant had no insurable interest over the shop is not sustainable and it is liable to be repelled.6. Point Nos 2 & 3 : The case of the complainant is that his shop ruined in fire at about 10.30 P.M. on 18-6-05 when his brother left closing the shop. The surveyor deputed by the opposite party to assess the damages physically verified the debris of fire destructed goods as well as the totally and partially burnt bakery and stationery items. After his elaborate survey he assessed the net loss subject to the limitation and deduction of policy at 1,04,698/- rupees. In this context the opposite party took a further contention that the damage is occurred not only due to fire but by wetness also due to pouring of water to control the fire and therefore they are not liable to pay damages for the loss occur due to wetness. We think this is an absured contention. Human nature being what it is and responses of a prudent people being what is they may try to control the spread of fire by all means in order to prevent extended calamities. For these they may use anything like water, mud etc. Can a prudent person who has insured his shop can prevent them by saying that the damages to the insured goods by other means will disqualify him from insurance claim. So the damages caused to the insured goods due to wetness on account of pouring water to control the fire is also a causa proxima or an immediate cause and not a remote cause. Hence this loss can be accounted for assessing the damages due to fire. 7. On a bare perusal of Ext.A4 repudiation letter itself it appears that the attempt of the opposite party was to evade the liability and not to honor the claim. The following are the 7 reasons stated in the repudiation letter. 1. Cause of fire and fire itself is not identified. 2. Electrical Inspector’s report does not attribute cause due to short-circuit as claimed by the insured. 3. Chemical analysis report is not submitted to rule out fraud. 4. The insured has not acted in good faith and his actions have contributed mainly to the physical loss, if any, sustained (water damage/handling damage) subsequent to alleged fire. 5. No Fire Force was called or their report received. 6. Claim amount equal to Sum insured of policy without any basis and is highly exaggerated. 7. The insured shop has no valid licence on the date of occurrence and No Proper Books of Account. 8. On going through the above reasons it is seen that none of the requirements are contemplated either in policy or in policy condition to honor the claim as per the shop keepers insurance policy. Moreover many of the grounds alleged for the reason for the repudiation are to be proved by the opposite party themselves to repudiate the claim. Those are only flimsy reasons alleged to evade the honoring of claim. Therefore the repudiation of claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. 9. Point No.4. Relief & Costs Ext.B3 is the survey report. As per Ext.B3 Surveyor assessed the loss as 1,04,698/- rupees as per policy conditions. The complainant is entitled for that amount. Complainant is also entitled for compensation due to the preposterous repudiation of claim together with costs. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of 1,04,698/- rupees to the complainant. Opposite party further directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum for 1,04,698/- rupees from the date of complaint till payment by way of compensation for the loss, hardships, mental agony caused to the complainant together with a cost of Rs.3500/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite party shall pay interest @ 15% per annum for 1,04,698/- rupees from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Shopkeepers Insurance Policy. A2.Photcopy of FIR A3. Photocopy of Final Report A4. 23-05-06 Letter sent by National Insurance Co.Ltd to A.M.Yousuf A5. Power of Attorney . A6. Licence Fee Demand Register 2004-2005 Page No.49 B1. 24-1-06 Copy of letter sent by North Malabar Gramin Bank to Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.ltd, Kannur. B2. Survey Report B3. True copy of stocks in Trade lying in complainants shop issued by Manager, NMG Bank, Kunjathur Branch X1.27-6-05 photocopy of letter sent by Yusoof Kaleel to Manager, NMG Bank, Kunjathur X2.20-6-05 copy of letter PW1.Abdul Sathar PW2.Balan Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
