IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 30^th day of March, 2010

Filed on 24.05.08

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.110/08

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Party:-

     Sri.P.Sivan Pillai,                                                     The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,      

     Koikkal Peedika, Pulinkunnu,                                  Nellai Complex, North of Iron Bridge,

     Kuttanad, Alappuzha.                                              Alappuzha.

                                                                                 (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is that his building No.IX/358OF Pulincunnu Gramapanchayath was insured with opposite party. Certain persons in that locality damaged his building. Consequences to this he claimed insurance claim from the opposite party. But they repudiated the claim. Hence he filed this complaint.

1. Opposite party filed version stating that the damaged house is not the building insured with the opposite party and he has no ownership over the damaged building. Hence they repudiated the claim.

2. Considering the rival contention of both parties this Forum framed following issues.

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

3. Complainant filed 10 documents which are marked as Ext. A1 to Al0 and examined him as PW1. Opposite party examined two witness and produced 5 documents which are marked as Ext. B1 to B5.

4. The definite case of the opposite party is that insured building is not the damaged building. For substantiating this contention opposite party mainly relied Ext. B1 investigation report of their private investigator. In the last page of this report investigator stated that "1. The insured shed is temporary one and not built in his own property …….. 5. The construction was done in a disputed property."  These statements show that the investigator has knowledge that the damaged building is the insured building. Further Ext. A3 is the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayath authorities. It is true that there is a dispute over the property in which the building is situated. But Ext. A6 shows that the suit decreed in favour of the complainant. Through the said judgment court upheld the title of the complainant. The surveyor also stated in his report that "and said else where in this report the construction done on the disputed site and the insured expected eviction or destruction from the local at any time. He has insured the building anticipating the eviction."  From these statements it can be concluded that the complainant has ownership over the damaged building. From the above documents it can be concluded that the contention taken by the opposite party is not acceptable. After insuring the building the opposite party has no right to take such contentions.

As per the survey report Ext. B2, the surveyor assessed damage of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only). This amount assessed after calculating depreciation. Hence the complainant is entitled to get this amount with 9% interest. Complaint is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) cost of the proceedings. In the result complaint allowed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2010.

Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           P.Sivan Pillai (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The copy of the FIR

Ext. A2            -           The copy of the 2^nd page of the Malayala Manorama dated, 27.03.2007

Ext. A3            -           The copy of the Ownership Certificate

Ext. A4 & A5   -           The copies of the Tax Receipts of Land dated, 30.5.07 and 11.6.08 respectively

Ext. A6            -           The copy of the Order in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Alappuzha

Ext. A7            -           The copy of the Judgment of Prl.Munsiff’s Court Alappuzha C.M.A.29/99

Ext. A8            -           The copy of the title Deed dated, 10.07.1997

Ext. A9            -           The copy of the Ration Card No.1419004338

Ext. A10          -           The copy of the Decree Judgment O.S.876/98

Evidence of the opposite party:- 

RW1                -           M.A.Augustine (Witness)

RW2                -           Parameswaran Nair (Witness)

Ext. B1 -           The Investigation Report dated, 16.10.2007     

Ext. B2 -           The copy of the Policy and Condition

Ext. B3 -           The Claim Form dated, 28.03.2007

Ext. B4 -           The Survey Report with Photos

Ext. A5            -           The Regt Letter of the Opposite p[arty dated, 13.11.2007

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-    

Compared by:-