BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.NO.67 OF 2011
Between:
M/s Asrar Enterprises
Rep. by its Prop.Asrar Ahmed Khan
S/o late Rehmullah Khan, Dr.No.7-147/6,
Vinayak Nagar, 40 feet Road Near Public
Weigh Bridge, Opp. Ayodhya Nagar
IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-055
Complainant
A N D
M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd,
rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.7-4-194/5
First Floor, Shiv Ganesh Complex,
Geethanagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad-050
Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.Naganatha Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent M/s Katta Laxmi Prasad
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE ELEVANTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party-insurance company for payment of `31,06,728/- which include the claim for `23,05,177/- lodged with the opposite party-insurance company and interest thereon ,compensation and costs.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant-firm obtained insurance policy bearing number 551801/11/08/3 from the opposite party-insurance company for the year 23.03.2009 to 22.03.2010. A fire accident occurred on 16.02.2010 in the premises at 7-147/6,Vinayaknagar, Jeedimetla causing damage to the insured property. The complainant-firm lodged complaint with the Police, Jeedimetla who registered FIR No.112 of 2010 on 16.02.2010 and conducted panchanama to the effect that rubber plugs, Bottles, Vails,,Aluminum seals, Dropper set were burnt. The complainant-firm intimated the opposite party-insurance company about the accident and the opposite party through its letter dated 25.02.2010 requested the complainant to submit the documents mentioned therein which were handed over to the surveyor on 14.07.2010. On 23.08.2010 M/s Teccons & Co sought for clarification which was furnished through letter dated 1.10.2010 and for the query of the opposite party-insurance company raised on 18.04.2011, the complainant answered on 29.04.2011.
3. The complainant-firm got issued notice dated 12.12.2011 to the opposite party-insurance company requesting for settlement of the claim for which the opposite party-insurance company issued reply on 24.04.2011. The complainant –firm addressed letter dated26.05.2011 informing the opposite party that it had furnished all the documents and registers and it is left with no documents or registers with it. On 10.06.2011 the opposite party-insurance company issued letter requesting the complainant to submit the documents inspected by the surveyor for which the complainant replied that all the documents and registers were already submitted to the opposite party-insurance company. As the opposite party-insurance company has not settled the claim, the complainant has filed the complaint.
4. The claim is resisted on behalf of the opposite party-insurance company by filing written version contending that the complainant is not consumer and the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant firm withheld material documents such as stock register which was counter signed by the surveyor at the time of inspection. It is contended that the claim is fraudulent and that the stock was kept by the complainant in another premises which is not covered by the insurance policy. In the FIR the place of occurrence is mentioned as beside H.No.7-147, the fire emanated due to electric shock circuit is denied by CPDC of A.P.. The short circuit may be due to internal shock circuiting of the wiring. The details mentioned in the panchanama do not tally with those of the FIR.
5. The letters dated 25.2.2010, 5.4.2010, 23.8.2010 issued by the surveyor and the letter dated 18.4.2011 issued by the opposite party indicates the efforts made by the opposite party to secure the records and the lethargy on the part of the complainant and belated submission of papers on 14.7.2010 by the complainant. It is contended that on the basis of material available, the surveyor held inspection and concluded that the net loss would amount to `6,12,260/-.
6. The proprietor of the complainant-firm has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A18. On behalf of the opposite party-insurance company, its Deputy Manager and the Chartered Engineer, Surveyor and Valuer have filed their affidavits and the documents, ExB1 to B10.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant-firm has filed written submissions.
8. The point for consideration is whether the complainant-firm is entitled to the amount claimed from the opposite party-insurance company?
9. The issuance of insurance policy for the period commencing from 23.3.2009 till 22.3.2010 covering the risk in respect of the stocks stored in the premises bearing no.7-147/6 situated at Vinayaka Nagar Hyderabad is not disputed. The complainant firm has lodged complaint with the police Jeedimetla on 16.2.2010 that the stocks were damaged on account of fire accident which was result of short circuit. The opposite party insurance company has refused to settle the claim on the premise that the complainant firm has not submitted the documents verified and attested by the surveyor at the time of inspection. The parties proceeded with the matter basing on the document and the opposite party has sought for production of the document for the purpose of settlement of the claim.
10. Having sought for furnishing of the documents containing the counter signature of the surveyor made at the time inspection of the premises, the opposite party cannot contend that the premises where the accident occurred and the insured premises are not one and the ame and they are different premises. Even otherwise, the address mentioned in the insurance policy in regard to the premises where the insured stock was kept and the addressed mentioned in the complaint lodged with the policy by the complainant firm would show the same address.
11. The learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company has expressed doubt as to the cause of the accident and he has contended that certificate issued by the electricity department would show that the short circuit occurred was the result of an internal wiring defect. This aspect also cannot be raised by the opposite party in the light of voluminous correspondence made by it with the complainant firm seeking for production of documents to quantify the amount to be shared by the complainant. Even otherwise, any accident causing damage to the insured stocks is covered within the precincts of the coverage of risk mentioned in the insurance policy.
12. Insofar as the amount claimed by the complainant firm on account of damage caused to the stock due to the accident is concerned, the complainant has claimed a sum of `23,05,177/-. The opposite party has deputed surveyor and the surveyor had inspected the damaged stock and the registers maintained by the complainant firm. The surveyor in his affidavit has stated that he had verified the documents and counter signed them at the time of inspecting the premises and the proprietor of complainant firm has taken back the document containing the counter signature promising that he would submit them later. He has stated that the stock registers furnished on 1.10.2010 are different from those registers which were inspected by him. The surveyor has stated that:
“I submit that when I visited the place of the complainant and sought for documents; some stock registers were furnished and the said stock registers which were shown for supporting of availability of stock; as per trade practice were to be handed over but the same were counter signed by me in the presence of the proprietor of the insured firm and the Branch Manager & Divisional Manager of the National Insurance Company and handed over to the proprietor as he had refused to hand over the same. I submit that the stock registers furnished on 1.10.2010 are different stock registers which are brought into existence and the same is with changed data and the data not supported by any cogent record of purchase, sale, orders received; data which can be co-related with the way bill, transport LR, etc. Though after counter signature of the registers the same were returned to the insured who sought for the same and promised to submit the same with claim details the same are not produced even after repeated demand. That the registers produced are nothing but false, got written to get more compensation and contrary to previous sales, purchases and stocks maintained”
13. The complainant has contended that all the documents required by the opposite party were submitted. The complainant firm has not denied that the documents submitted by it to the opposite party insurance company and those documents counter signed by the surveyor are not the same. The surveyor has filed his affidavit supporting the plea of the opposite party that the documents counter signed by him have not been submitted by the complainant firm to the opposite party insurance company. In the absence of the documents inspected and attested by the surveyor, the complainant firm cannot seek for any amount other than the amount mentioned and arrived at by the surveyor after assessing the loss caused to the insured stock. The opposite party insurance company cannot refuse to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor as the surveyor had inspected the documents as well as counter signed them. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite party insurance company is liable to pay amount of `6,22,260/- as assessed by the surveyor and the complainant firm on its failure to furnish the documents required by the opposite party insurance company as also the documents inspected by the surveyor, cannot claim any amount than the amount of `6,22,260/- as assessed by the surveyor.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party insurance company to pay an amount of `6,22,260/- together with costs of `3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.11.12.2012
KMK*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant for opposite party
NIL NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainant:
Ex. A1 Policy No. 551801/81/08/0000003765, dated
23.03.2009 issued by the Opposite Party
Ex. A2 Copy of FIR No. 112/2010, dated 16.02.2010 issued by the
Station Housing Officer, Jeedimetla P.S., Cyberabad.
Ex. A3 Copy of Fire Claim Form dated 16.02.2010
for Rs.23,05,177/-
Ex. A4 Copy of letter dated 05.04.2010 issued by the
Surveyor of the O.P.
Ex. A5 Copy of letter dated 25.02.2010 addressed to the
Complainant Firm
Ex. A6 Copy of letter dated 14.07.2010 of the complainant
firm to the Surveyor
Ex. A7 Copy of letter dated 23.08.2010 of the Surveyor
Ex.A8 Copy of letter dated 01.10.2010 of the Complainant Firm
to the Surveyor of the O.P.
Ex.A9 Copy of letter dated 18.04.2011 of the Complainant Firm
Ex.A10 Copy of letter dated 29.04.2011 of the Complainant
Firm to the O.P
Ex.A11 Copy of the Legal Notice dated 12.02.2011 issued by the O.P.
Ex.A12 Copy of Regd. A. D Slip dated 15.02.2011
Ex.A13 Copy of Regd. A. D Slip dated 15.02.2011
Ex.A14 Copy of Acknowledgement due slip dated 21.02.2011
Ex.A15 Reply notice dated 26.04.2011 issued by the O.P.
Ex.A16 Copy of letter dated 26.05.2011 of the complainant firm
to the O.P
Ex.A17 Copy of letter dated 10.06.2011 addressed by
OP to the complainant
Ex.A18 Copy of letter dated 24.06.2011 of the complainant firm addressed to the O.P
For opposite party
Ex.B1 Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy.
Ex.B2 Wordings for warranties to be attached to the policies.
Ex.B3 National Insurance Company Limited Sanat Ngar Branch Office Clauses Applicable to Add-on covers..
Ex.B4 Survey Report Standard Fire And Special Perils Policy,Contents.
Ex.B5 Survey Report Standard Fire And Special Perils Policy, Date 10.11.2010
Ex.B6 National Insurance Company Ltd, date 09.08.2011
Ex.B7 National Insurance Company Ltd, date 18.04.2011
Ex.B8 Purchase Register-2009-2010
Ex.B9 Sales Register
Ex.B10 Sales Register
MEMBER
MEMBER
