BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No.989/2009 against 

Between

The IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance

Company Limited, rep. by the Branch Manager,

Office No.3, IInd Floor, D.No.47/11/8,

G.K.Towers, Dwaraka Nagar,

Visakhapatnam

       1.Narne Seshaiah, S/o.Veera Raghavaiah,

                                                               2. The Tobacco Board,

                                                                  Counsel for the Appellant     

Counsel for the Respondents :                                        

F.A.No.990/2009 against 

Between

The IFFCO – TOKIO GeneralInsurance

Company Limited, rep. by the Branch Manager,

Office No.3, IInd Floor, D.No.47/11/8,

G.K.Towers, Dwaraka Nagar,

Visakhapatnam

       1. Annem Venkatarami Reddy,

                                                               2. The Tobacco Board,

                                   Counsel for the Appellant     

Counsel for the Respondents : 

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

               TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE

 ( Typed to dictation of  

                                                F.A.No.989/2009:

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.255 of 08 

 The brief facts as stated in the complaint areInsurance            

Opposite party no.1 filed counter   

Opposite party no.2 filed counter admitting issuance of the policy and also the assessment of the surveyor at Rs.8000/-.  

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and B1 allowed the complaint in part directing     The complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.2000/-  Aggrieved by the said order, 

The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party no.2 vehemently contended that the surveyor is an independent authority and he assessed the loss only as per the procedure and norms laid down by the IRDL and submitted his report based on which the Insurance Company sent the cheque 

The facts not in dispute are the issuance      

“The barn and the wall were collapsed upto lintel portion and roof structure trusses and purling were broken.  Roof sheets – 3 nos. roof ceiling sheets – 6 nos. were crushed and fallen under the debris. 

ASSESSMENT OF LOSS:

S.No

1.           2.           3.            4.           5.           6.             7.                           8.                9.                    10.         

SALVAGE : The salvage value of the damaged material may

VALUATION :The depreciated value of the barn was worked out for

NET LOSS ASSESSED:

It is clear from above that the surveyor has unilaterally deducted 50% depreciation     

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and order of the District Forum is modified setting aside the amount of Rs.2000/- awarded towards compensation while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum. F.A.990/2009:        

In the result F.A.990/09 is 

                                                               Pm*