FA.No.702/2008 against CC.No.1/2008 District Consumer Forum, West Godavari District at Eluru.

Between:

The United India Insurance K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager.

…Appellant/Opp.Party No.2.

And

1.Varikuti Peda Srinivasa Rao,

   S/o.Venkata Subbarao,

   Hindu, Male, Aged about 28 years,

   D.No.4-13, Pedala, Tadepalligudem Mandal,

…R.1/Complainant.

2.The Branch Manager,

   State Bank of Hyderabad,

   Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist.

…R.2/Opp.Party No.1.

Counsel for the Appellant         :    Mr. A. Ramalingeswara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent     :    Admn.Stage.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, we felt that this was a fit case where the matter could be disposed of at the threshold, at the stage of admission.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he had borrowed a sum   Rs.1,00,000/- under Rajiv Yuva Shakthi Scheme from the State Bank of Hydeabad, and purchased household material.  While sanctioning the said loan, the Bank got insured the entire material under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy with the Insurance Company for Rs.1,00,000/-.  While so, in the early hours of 1^st November, 2005, due to heavy rains the entire house was collapsed and the material placed therein was completely damaged.  The said fact was informed to the opposite parties.  The Insurance Company had deputed its surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.19  Dissatisfied with this, the complainant gave notice for which the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 26.12.2006, and therefore, the complaint.

3.         The Bank, the 1^st opposite party, resisted the case.  It alleged that it has no concern for recovery of the insurance amount covered under the policy.  No amount could be recovered from it and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The appellant, the Insurance Company, filed counter resisting the case.  It alleged that the loss against the risk of rain was not covered under the terms of the policy.  The certificate issued by the Meteorological   shows that there was no cyclone on 01.11.2005.  Even the surveyor appointed by them had informed that there was no cyclone.  Since the risk was not covered by the terms of the policy, it had rightly repudiated the claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and documents, marked as Exs.A.1 to A.14.   The appellant filed affidavit of one of its officers and documents, Exs.B.1 and B.2.  The District Forum after considering the fact that the terms of the policy cover the risk not only by way of cyclone but also by way of storm, inundation, etc, opined that the Insurance Company was bound to pay the amount covered under the policy, and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1 

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the policy does not cover the damage to goods due to ordinary rain.  It covers only in the event of cyclone.  It has rightly repudiated the claim.

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount covered under the policy?

8.         It is not in dispute that a loan of Rs.1  The policy was issued by the appellant, the Insurance Company, for Rs.1  05.04.2005 to 04.04.2006.  It is also not in dispute that on 01.11.2005 there was heavy rain evidenced under Ex.A.6 certificate issued by the Director, Meteorological Department and in the process an inundation  the entire goods that were purchased by the complainant, were completely damaged.  When the complainant claimed the amount covered under the policy, the same was repudiated on the ground that there was no cyclone on the night of 01.11.2005.

         At the outset we may state that the terms of the policy not only covers the “cyclone” but also “storm, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, floods and inundation, loss, destruction or damage directly caused by the above excluding earthquake, volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature” (vide Cl. VI of the policy).   When there was inundation may be due to heavy rain and the entire material was lost, we do not see how the terms of the policy do not cover the instant case on the hand.  It is no where stated that inundation should be caused due to cyclone.  Undoubtedly, the terms of the policy clearly cover the risk.  In fact a Surveyor visited the place and confirmed that the Insurance Company had to pay.  He opined that the entire material was washed away, however restricted the claim to Rs.19  We do not see any reason for the surveyor to assess the value at Rs.19  to the goods.  When the appellant having specified the value of the material and gave insurance policy for Rs.1  The District Forum has considered the mater in detail and we do not see any ground whatsoever to defer with the said findings. 

10.       We do not see any merits in this appeal.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed.           

PRESIDENT               MALE MEMBER

DtVvr.