BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 887/2009 against C.C. 240/2005, Dist. Forum, Ongole
Between:
Ravella Venkataswamy
S/o. Venkata Subbaiah
Agriculturist
R/o. Bodduvaripalem
Santhanuthalapadu
Prakasham Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
3B, Balaji Mangalagiri Chambers
CBM Compound, Visakapatnam.
**** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Manmadha Rao.
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V.G.S. Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against inadequacy of compensation granted by the Dist. Forum.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he got insured his tobacco barn for Rs. 1 lakh covering the period from 21.8.2004 to 20.8.2005 with the respondent insurance company under group farmers package policy. While on 12. 2. 2005 at about 10.00 a.m., while curing tobacco accidentally barn caught fire and was burnt. The same was informed to the Station Fire Officer, Ongole which came and extinguished the fire. However, entire stock was damaged consisting of tobacco crop, subabul sticks, tires, iron tubes, furnace etc. The fire authorities assessed the damage at Rs. 1, 30,000/-. When he submitted the claim the insurance company sent a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- towards loss. On that he sent notice demanding Rs. 1, 30,000/-. Value of the damage with interest together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. It settled the claim for a meagre amount, and therefore he prayed that an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., be awarded together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.
3) The insurance company resisted the case. On receipt of intimation about the fire accident it had appointed a surveyor who visited the barn estimated the loss at Rs. 20,000/-. Basing on which it had sent a cheque. The claim of the complainant was very excessive. He could not show as to how the loss was assessed to a tune of Rs. 1, 30,000/- . The claim was made only to have an illegal gain and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and examined Sri K.V.S. Prasad, Field Officer, Tobacco Board as PW2 and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence Manager and examined Sri N. Varaha Swamy surveyor as RW2 and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked. An advocated commissioner was also appointed to inspect the premises. After conducting inspection he filed his report marked as Ex. C1 and photographs Exs. C2 to C6.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the surveyor assessed the damage at Rs. 25,641.23. However, the insurance company without any reason slashed the amount and sent a cheque for Rs. 20,000/-. The Dist. Forum however, assessed the damages at Rs. 30,0000/- and as an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was already paid directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from 8.4.2005 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the loss assessed by the fire authorities was at Rs. 1, 30,000/-. They were virtually present at the scene of accident and rightly assessed the damage. The very insurance company paid Rs. 20,000/- suppressing the assessment of surveyor at Rs. 25,641.23. This establishes that the insurance company intends to make a false claim and benefit out of it. Equally the Dist. Forum has erroneously assessed by mistake at Rs. 30,000/- without considering the record. Therefore he prayed that the complaint be allowed as claimed by him.
7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant along with other farmers had taken farmers package policy from 21.8.2004 to 20.8.2005 for Rs. 1 lakh each. There was a mention that each farmer covered for a) tobacco barn Rs. 1 lakh for one year, b) tobacco barn while curing for Rs. 30,000/- for 5 months, c) tobacco in racks for Rs. 30,000/- for five months d) tobacco in storage before auctions or during auctions for Rs. 80,000/- for 7 months and e) thatched pandals/farm sheds for storage of tobacco for Rs. 1 lakh for 5 months vide Ex. B4.
8) Equally it is not in dispute that the tobacco barn belonging to the complainant was burnt on 12.2.2005 at 8.30 a.m. and immediately on intimation the Station Fire Officer at Ongole extinguished the fire. They have mentioned that tobacco barn; 7 quintals of tobacco and barn equipment were involved in the fire accident and damaged by fire completely. They have noted at coloumn No. 10 damage as reported by the owner is Rs. 1, 30,000/-. It may be stated that the fire station authorities did not assess the value of the damage. The insurance company appointed a surveyor Sri N. Varahaswamy to assess the damage. The surveyor noted “This time the insured loaded the barn with 5th pick tobacco leaf on 4.2.2005 and the pre-curing process was completed and fire-curing process was started on 8.2.2005. Unfortunately the barn was caught at about 8.30 a.m. on 12.2.2005 and the barn and its contents were reduced to ashes. He noted that on thorough inspection of the fire damaged barn following damages wee noticed.
The barn all the tiers – 42 Nos.
Trusses – 2 Nos.
Purling – 8 Nos.
Window with frame, bottom ventilators – 4 Nos.
Inspection window frame with glass and
Bamboo sticks – 900 Nos. were burnt and reduced to ashes.
The flue pipes – 86 and roof top angular frame were damaged.
The stock of tobacco 5.175 quintals along with twin rope were burnt and reduced to ashes.
He noted the value of loss of super structure at Rs. 23,538/-. He gave depreciation at 50% and reduced the amount to Rs. 11,769/-. Finally he assessed the loss as under:
Assessed the loss on superstructure Rs. 11,769/-
Apply average clause Rs. 10,607/-
Assessed loss on the stock of tobacco Rs. 15,783/-
---------------
Rs. 26,391/-
Less: Salvage value Rs. 750/-
---------------
Recommended claim amount Rs. 25,641/-.
===========
9) He recommended that Rs. 25,641/- be paid towards loss due to fire accident. It is very curious to learn that the insurance company had suppressed this surveyor’s report, and sent a cheque Rs. 20,000/- on the ground that the surveyor has assessed the same towards full and final settlement. The insurance company could not give any reason whatsoever as to how it could further reduce it to Rs. 20,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. If the insurance company is of the opinion that the surveyor has estimated at a higher side it could have approached the IRDA u/s 64UM of Insurance Act and got another surveyor appointed. In the cross-examination the said surveyor when confronted with the estimate he stated “four quintals are required for single curing. For construction of barren one requires Rs. 1 lakh to 1.6 lakhs depending on structure. For each curing of tobacco products a minimum of Rs. 18,000/- and a maximum of Rs. 30,000/- is required. He himself admits that “we used to estimate loss of barren for an extent of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- but not Rs. 1 lakh or above in case of total damage, after deducting salvage and depreciation.
10) At the outset, we may state that the complainant did not file documentary evidence to show the amount spent towards products of tobacco, subable sticks, tiers etc. The report of the advocate commissioner is of no help in assessing the damage. What all he reiterated was that the barn was damaged which is not in dispute. We may state that when the surveyor has estimated an amount of Rs. 40,038/- there is no reason why a depreciation of 50% could be given without any proof whatsoever when it was insured for Rs. 1 lakh. He himself has give 50% depreciation while estimating the value of the barn. Loss of stock was assessed at Rs. 16,560/-. By giving unsubstantiated deductions he could not have arrived at Rs. 25,641/-. Even for this the insurance company did not agree. The insurance company intends to benefit itself by settling the claim at an abnormal low amount without any ground whatsoever. Even it had deducted the amount while paying the loss assessed by the surveyor which itself was very low. All this smacks suspicion on the conduct of the insurance company. Considering the nature of the claim and the report the surveyor, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,038/- which we feel reasonable and modest.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed in part consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 40,038/-. In view of the fact that out of this amount an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has already been received by the complainant, the complainant is entitled balance of Rs. 40,038/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of surveyor’s report till the date of realization besides compensation and costs awarded by the Dist. Forum. The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
11/05/2011
*pnr
