BEFORE THE 

F.A.No.696 of 2009 against   , 

Between:

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Peejay Plaza, Door No.10-144/9, 3^rdV.I.P. Road, CBM Compound,

Visakhapatnam.                                                                                                                

1. Chilipi Lakshmi Kanthamma

                                                                            2. The Auction Superintendent,

                                                          (Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party to

 the appeal)

    Counsel for the Appellant    

Counsel for the Respondents 

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE 

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order ( per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President.)
***

This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the order of the District Forum

The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a tobacco grower having Ac.4.00 of land     

First opposite party resisted the case.  

The appellant insurance company, resisted the case.    

The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and marked Exs.A1 to A5 while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of the surveyor, loss assessor and filed Exs.B1 toB6.

The District Forum   

The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant owns a tobacco barn insured with the appellant covering the tobacco barn for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  

Description of Damage: Both walls (west and south) of the barn at west-south corner was partially collapsed from roof end to plinth level. 

The complainant has alleged that the loss was Rs.63,200/- and the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1400/-.  .  It is unfortunate that the surveyor obviously in order to please the insurance authorities have been resorting to this sort of estimation without any basis whatsoever. When the barn was estimated at a value of Rs.1,00,000/- hardly about six months prior to the occurrence, suddenly the depreciation could not have been     LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON CONSUMER PROTECTION in R.P.No.103/2005 dated 17/12/2008 in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., v. BHAGAT SINGH P-250published by Universal Law Publishing Co. observed as follows:

“6….It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of that vehicle to take out an insurance vehicle as provided under Chapter II of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy invites a punishment under Section 196 thereof.    th

The District Forum however equally did not admit the claim made by the complainant on the ground that no evidence whatsoever was produced to show that he sustained a loss of Rs.63,200/-.  

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM