BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 168/1998 Filed on 28/3/1998 Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainants: John K. Thamaraveli, T.C.VI/695, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. Prabha John, T.C.VI/695, ...do...
Opposite party: M/s. National Insurance Co., Branch No.1, P.B.No.60, Soundarya Buildings, 1st Floor, Puthenchanthai, Thiruvananthapuram.
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11/5/2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..05..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are the following. The complainants had insured their building and movables therein with the opposite party against fire and other perils and the sum assured was Rs.17,70,400/-. After collecting the premium of Rs.1,301/- the opposite party issued the fire policy – A. The opposite party before issuing the policy send its officer to inspect the belongings housed in the residence of the complainant in order to assess the value. The fire policy A was issued to the complainant by the opposite party after satisfying themselves regarding value of each article. On 16th December 1997 at about 1.30 AM the complainant heard an explosion in the kitchen area of the complainants' residence. The complainants hurried to the kitchen area, they saw their 3 door Norge Refrigerator engulted in fire. Due to the fire the refrigerator has suffered extensive damage and a large portion of the fridge is seen melted, that the 3 door Norge refrigerator was covered under Fire policy. The fridge was insured for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The occurrence of fire in kitchen area was telephonically intimated to Mr. R.P. Nair, the Manager of the opposite party and vide letter dated 16/12/1997. The opposite party issued a fire claim form to the complainant, that on 23/12/1997 the complainant submitted the fire claim application. The total insured sum of Rs.75,000/- for the Fridge is claimed since the authorised expert of the opposite party for the fridge is of opinion that the Fridge is not repairable. The opposite party vide their letter dated 16/2/1998 informed the complainant that his claim for refrigerator cum freezer cannot be entertained as the complainants claim come under the exclusion No.6 of Fire A policy and as a consolation allowed an amount towards repair charges under household policy. The complainant took fire policy only to protect the household articles against fire and other perils. The opposite party who gave this policy only to cover all risks against fire, are now coming up with excuses to avoid payment of insured amount. The complaint has not committed any breach of warranty or conditions. The action of the opposite party who issued the policy after collecting premium, cannot take refuge under a printed condition which does not carry signature of complainant and opposite party. The non-payment of insured sum by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is necessitated.
2. The opposite party in their version contends as follows: The opposite party had issued a fire policy - A and as per the policy the entire house-hold articles were insured for an amount of Rs.17,70,400/- for the period starting from 9/8/1997 to 8/8/1998, that the contract of insurance between the complainants and the opposite party was made believing the representations made by the complainant in the proposal in utmost good faith and the opposite party has not inspected seen or valued articles personally before issuing the policy. The averment that due to fire the refrigerator has suffered extensive damages and a large portion of the fridge was seen melted is absolutely false and hence denied. The complainant had intimated to the opposite party regarding the incident vide letter dated 16/12/1997 and the opposite party had immediately deputed Insurance Surveyor/Loss Assessor to inspect the refrigerator. As per the report of the surveyor dated 11/2/1998 the refrigerator went out of order due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator. As per the fire policy A the insurance does not cover the loss caused due to short circuit of the first affected item. The policy Exclusion No.6 excludes “Loss or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric house-hold or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatsoever cause (lightning included) provided that the exemption shall apply only to the particular apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portion of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portions of the electrical installation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set-up”. The refrigerator owned by the complainant was damaged due to short circuiting which is not covered under the policy conditions being the first affected item. The opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainants only according to the conditions and exclusions contained in the policy which was issued to the complainants along with the schedule, that the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite party. The claim put forward by the complainant for the loss of refrigerator/freezer is not payable as it comes under the exclusion No.6 of the Fire Policy A issued to complainant. It is further submitted that the opposite party had offered an amount of Rs.4,127/- vide letter dated 16/2/1998 for repairing the damages to the building of the complainant caused due to the fire set up by the short circuiting inside the fridge. Along with the letter the opposite party had enclosed a loss voucher in triplicate for the said amount of Rs.4,127/- and requested the complainant to return the same duly stamped and signed for issuing the cheque in full and final settlement of the claim. Though the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the letter, the voucher was not returned after due signature. Instead of that the complainant sent a legal notice stating untenable contentions. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant only in accordance with the conditions of policy issued to him. The said conditions and exclusions are binding on the complainant as it is stated in the policy issued to the complainant that “This policy is subject to the clauses and warranties attached hereto”. The opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. This Forum once heard the matter and the order passed on 28/2/2000 was set aside by the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and has been remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases.
4. Complainant examined as PW1 marked Exts.P1 to P13 and Ext.C1. From the side of the opposite party DW1 & DW2 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D6.
5. The points to be decided as per the contentions made by the complainants are: Whether the act of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is justifiable? Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainants? Reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the policy. According to the opposite party, as per the policy conditions Exclusion No. 6 excludes “Loss or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric house-hold or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatsoever cause (lightning included) provided that the exemption shall apply only to the particular apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portion of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portions of the electrical installation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set-up”. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the refrigerator owned by the complainant was damaged due to short-circuiting which is not covered under Ext.D6 policy conditions being the first affected item and opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants and not liable to pay any amount as per the policy conditions. But according to the complainant, the fire policy has been taken only to protect the house-hold articles against fire and other perils and the opposite party who has issued the policy only to cover all risks against fire, cannot reject the claim under flimsy ground.
7. In view of the above, the aspect for consideration is whether the complainants' claim comes under the said exclusion clause.
8. According to the complainants, due to fire their 3 door Norga Refrigeator which was covered under fire policy has been extensively damaged and as per it the complainants claimed the total insured sum of Rs.75,000/- of the fridge since the authorised expert, of the opposite party, for the fridge opined that the fridge was not repairable. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the claim is not entertainable as the loss caused due to short circuiting of the first affected item is not covered under the particular policy. At this juncture, the cause of fire has to be looked into. In Ext.P4, the cause of the fire has been mentioned by the complainant as 'internal short circuit of the refrigerator'. As per Ext.C1 report, filed by the Electrical Inspector, it has been concluded that 'From the observation made upon the state of electrification at the said premises it is reported that there is no chance of fire to the fridge due to defect in the electrical installation'. The findings of the Cochin Super Coolers, who had inspected the refrigerator in dispute re-iterates that the fire was started by electrical spark of the electrical wires embedded in the polyurethene insulation foam and the polyurethene foam insulation of the refrigerator cum freezer is almost totally burnt.
9. As per Ext.D3, the survey report, it has been reported by the surveyor that 'no damage was seen in external wiring. At the time of inspection it was noticed that the compressor, the pipes etc were not burnt. The bottom portion where the compressor and fan motor etc were kept alone were affected by this incident, which was caused due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator'. As per Ext. D4 prepared by DW1, he has noted that the damages were caused due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator. DW1 has been cross examined by the complainant. But nothing has been brought before this Forum to shake the said opinion.
10. The learned counsel for the opposite party has produced the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 10 Supreme Court cases 19 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd.and others, that "Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting iself to the contents of the joint survey report specially the factors enumerated therein. In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission".
11. The terms and conditions of the policy which is the basis of the contract of insurance has to be considered at this juncture. In the instant case, investigation was conducted by the opposite party regarding the claim of the complainants and on the basis of the available materials have come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainants falls under exclusion 6 of the policy. The rejection of the claim of the complainants, by the Insurance Co., after obtaining and considering 2 reports one of a qualified Surveyor and the other an opinion that of an expert, cannot be simply brushed aside and if the Insurance Co.has acted on the basis of the said reports, it cannot be said to constitute any deficiency in service so as to give rise to a cause of action for the complainant. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the reports as faulty. It is settled preposition of law that the report of the surveyor is an important piece of document and in the present case it stands unshaken.
12. From the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Insurance Company has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and taken a decision to the claim putforward by the insured that it comes under the exclusion clause of the policy. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in relation to the performance of its duties. The complainants have failed to let this Forum take any other view than the view taken by the Insurance Co.based on the report of the surveyor and the expert. We do not find any reason to take a different view in awarding the loss, assessed by the Surveyor, of Rs.4,127/- towards repairing the damages caused to building due to the short circuiting inside the fridge.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is at liberty to proceed for realisation of Rs.4,127/- from the opposite party. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of August, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.168/1998
APPENDIX I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : John Kurian Thamaraveli II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Conditions of Fire policy – A issued by opposite party (Tvpm Branch) P2 : Copy of general condition of house holder's policy of National Insurance Company Ltd. P3 : Letter dated 16/12/97 issued by the complainant to the opp. Party. P4 : Photocopy of fire claim form filled by the complainant dated 23/12/1997. P5 : Copy of esatimate prepared by Tiles worker for Rs.1,600/- P6 : Copy of bill No.006500 dated 20/12/1997 for Rs.638/- issued by Taj Enterprises. P7 : Copy of letter No.140/97 dated 18/12/97 issued to the complainant by the Proprietor, Cochin Super Coolers. P8 : Original letter dated 16/2/1998 with Ref.No. 570201/97-98/FIRE/CLAIM/RPN from Branch Manager, M.G.Road, Tvpm with two receipts P9 : Two acknowledgment cards dated 17/3/98 and 2/3/98. P10 : Two postal receipts P11 : Correction notice No.114/K.K/98 dated 10/3/98 to the opp. Party. P12 : Insurance Premium Guide P13 : Advocte notice dated 24/2/1998 to the oppo. Party.
III. Opposite party's witness: DW1 : V. Aanantha Shenoy DW2 : Sushala Abraham IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Original Fire Claim Form filled by the complainant dated 23/12/1997 D2 : Original letter dated 18/12/1997 with Ref.No.140/97 issued to the complainant by Cochin Super Coolers. D3 : Survey report on the damages to the Refrigerator cum Freezer belonging to the complaint prepared by Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor with Licence No.SLA-5910 dated 11/2/1998. D4 : Copy of letter dated 13/2/1998 issued by Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor SLA-8855 to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 168/1998 Filed on 28/3/1998 Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainants: John K. Thamaraveli, T.C.VI/695, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. Prabha John, T.C.VI/695, ...do...
Opposite party: M/s. National Insurance Co., Branch No.1, P.B.No.60, Soundarya Buildings, 1st Floor, Puthenchanthai, Thiruvananthapuram.
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11/5/2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..05..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are the following. The complainants had insured their building and movables therein with the opposite party against fire and other perils and the sum assured was Rs.17,70,400/-. After collecting the premium of Rs.1,301/- the opposite party issued the fire policy – A. The opposite party before issuing the policy send its officer to inspect the belongings housed in the residence of the complainant in order to assess the value. The fire policy A was issued to the complainant by the opposite party after satisfying themselves regarding value of each article. On 16th December 1997 at about 1.30 AM the complainant heard an explosion in the kitchen area of the complainants' residence. The complainants hurried to the kitchen area, they saw their 3 door Norge Refrigerator engulted in fire. Due to the fire the refrigerator has suffered extensive damage and a large portion of the fridge is seen melted, that the 3 door Norge refrigerator was covered under Fire policy. The fridge was insured for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The occurrence of fire in kitchen area was telephonically intimated to Mr. R.P. Nair, the Manager of the opposite party and vide letter dated 16/12/1997. The opposite party issued a fire claim form to the complainant, that on 23/12/1997 the complainant submitted the fire claim application. The total insured sum of Rs.75,000/- for the Fridge is claimed since the authorised expert of the opposite party for the fridge is of opinion that the Fridge is not repairable. The opposite party vide their letter dated 16/2/1998 informed the complainant that his claim for refrigerator cum freezer cannot be entertained as the complainants claim come under the exclusion No.6 of Fire A policy and as a consolation allowed an amount towards repair charges under household policy. The complainant took fire policy only to protect the household articles against fire and other perils. The opposite party who gave this policy only to cover all risks against fire, are now coming up with excuses to avoid payment of insured amount. The complaint has not committed any breach of warranty or conditions. The action of the opposite party who issued the policy after collecting premium, cannot take refuge under a printed condition which does not carry signature of complainant and opposite party. The non-payment of insured sum by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is necessitated.
2. The opposite party in their version contends as follows: The opposite party had issued a fire policy - A and as per the policy the entire house-hold articles were insured for an amount of Rs.17,70,400/- for the period starting from 9/8/1997 to 8/8/1998, that the contract of insurance between the complainants and the opposite party was made believing the representations made by the complainant in the proposal in utmost good faith and the opposite party has not inspected seen or valued articles personally before issuing the policy. The averment that due to fire the refrigerator has suffered extensive damages and a large portion of the fridge was seen melted is absolutely false and hence denied. The complainant had intimated to the opposite party regarding the incident vide letter dated 16/12/1997 and the opposite party had immediately deputed Insurance Surveyor/Loss Assessor to inspect the refrigerator. As per the report of the surveyor dated 11/2/1998 the refrigerator went out of order due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator. As per the fire policy A the insurance does not cover the loss caused due to short circuit of the first affected item. The policy Exclusion No.6 excludes “Loss or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric house-hold or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatsoever cause (lightning included) provided that the exemption shall apply only to the particular apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portion of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portions of the electrical installation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set-up”. The refrigerator owned by the complainant was damaged due to short circuiting which is not covered under the policy conditions being the first affected item. The opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainants only according to the conditions and exclusions contained in the policy which was issued to the complainants along with the schedule, that the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite party. The claim put forward by the complainant for the loss of refrigerator/freezer is not payable as it comes under the exclusion No.6 of the Fire Policy A issued to complainant. It is further submitted that the opposite party had offered an amount of Rs.4,127/- vide letter dated 16/2/1998 for repairing the damages to the building of the complainant caused due to the fire set up by the short circuiting inside the fridge. Along with the letter the opposite party had enclosed a loss voucher in triplicate for the said amount of Rs.4,127/- and requested the complainant to return the same duly stamped and signed for issuing the cheque in full and final settlement of the claim. Though the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the letter, the voucher was not returned after due signature. Instead of that the complainant sent a legal notice stating untenable contentions. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant only in accordance with the conditions of policy issued to him. The said conditions and exclusions are binding on the complainant as it is stated in the policy issued to the complainant that “This policy is subject to the clauses and warranties attached hereto”. The opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. This Forum once heard the matter and the order passed on 28/2/2000 was set aside by the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and has been remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases.
4. Complainant examined as PW1 marked Exts.P1 to P13 and Ext.C1. From the side of the opposite party DW1 & DW2 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D6.
5. The points to be decided as per the contentions made by the complainants are: Whether the act of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is justifiable? Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainants? Reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the policy. According to the opposite party, as per the policy conditions Exclusion No. 6 excludes “Loss or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting (including electric fans, electric house-hold or domestic appliances, wireless sets, television sets and radios) or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatsoever cause (lightning included) provided that the exemption shall apply only to the particular apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portion of the electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures, fittings or portions of the electrical installation which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set-up”. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the refrigerator owned by the complainant was damaged due to short-circuiting which is not covered under Ext.D6 policy conditions being the first affected item and opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants and not liable to pay any amount as per the policy conditions. But according to the complainant, the fire policy has been taken only to protect the house-hold articles against fire and other perils and the opposite party who has issued the policy only to cover all risks against fire, cannot reject the claim under flimsy ground.
7. In view of the above, the aspect for consideration is whether the complainants' claim comes under the said exclusion clause.
8. According to the complainants, due to fire their 3 door Norga Refrigeator which was covered under fire policy has been extensively damaged and as per it the complainants claimed the total insured sum of Rs.75,000/- of the fridge since the authorised expert, of the opposite party, for the fridge opined that the fridge was not repairable. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the claim is not entertainable as the loss caused due to short circuiting of the first affected item is not covered under the particular policy. At this juncture, the cause of fire has to be looked into. In Ext.P4, the cause of the fire has been mentioned by the complainant as 'internal short circuit of the refrigerator'. As per Ext.C1 report, filed by the Electrical Inspector, it has been concluded that 'From the observation made upon the state of electrification at the said premises it is reported that there is no chance of fire to the fridge due to defect in the electrical installation'. The findings of the Cochin Super Coolers, who had inspected the refrigerator in dispute re-iterates that the fire was started by electrical spark of the electrical wires embedded in the polyurethene insulation foam and the polyurethene foam insulation of the refrigerator cum freezer is almost totally burnt.
9. As per Ext.D3, the survey report, it has been reported by the surveyor that 'no damage was seen in external wiring. At the time of inspection it was noticed that the compressor, the pipes etc were not burnt. The bottom portion where the compressor and fan motor etc were kept alone were affected by this incident, which was caused due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator'. As per Ext. D4 prepared by DW1, he has noted that the damages were caused due to short circuiting inside the refrigerator. DW1 has been cross examined by the complainant. But nothing has been brought before this Forum to shake the said opinion.
10. The learned counsel for the opposite party has produced the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 10 Supreme Court cases 19 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd.and others, that "Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting iself to the contents of the joint survey report specially the factors enumerated therein. In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission".
11. The terms and conditions of the policy which is the basis of the contract of insurance has to be considered at this juncture. In the instant case, investigation was conducted by the opposite party regarding the claim of the complainants and on the basis of the available materials have come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainants falls under exclusion 6 of the policy. The rejection of the claim of the complainants, by the Insurance Co., after obtaining and considering 2 reports one of a qualified Surveyor and the other an opinion that of an expert, cannot be simply brushed aside and if the Insurance Co.has acted on the basis of the said reports, it cannot be said to constitute any deficiency in service so as to give rise to a cause of action for the complainant. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the reports as faulty. It is settled preposition of law that the report of the surveyor is an important piece of document and in the present case it stands unshaken.
12. From the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Insurance Company has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and taken a decision to the claim putforward by the insured that it comes under the exclusion clause of the policy. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in relation to the performance of its duties. The complainants have failed to let this Forum take any other view than the view taken by the Insurance Co.based on the report of the surveyor and the expert. We do not find any reason to take a different view in awarding the loss, assessed by the Surveyor, of Rs.4,127/- towards repairing the damages caused to building due to the short circuiting inside the fridge.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is at liberty to proceed for realisation of Rs.4,127/- from the opposite party. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of August, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.168/1998
APPENDIX I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : John Kurian Thamaraveli II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Conditions of Fire policy – A issued by opposite party (Tvpm Branch) P2 : Copy of general condition of house holder's policy of National Insurance Company Ltd. P3 : Letter dated 16/12/97 issued by the complainant to the opp. Party. P4 : Photocopy of fire claim form filled by the complainant dated 23/12/1997. P5 : Copy of esatimate prepared by Tiles worker for Rs.1,600/- P6 : Copy of bill No.006500 dated 20/12/1997 for Rs.638/- issued by Taj Enterprises. P7 : Copy of letter No.140/97 dated 18/12/97 issued to the complainant by the Proprietor, Cochin Super Coolers. P8 : Original letter dated 16/2/1998 with Ref.No. 570201/97-98/FIRE/CLAIM/RPN from Branch Manager, M.G.Road, Tvpm with two receipts P9 : Two acknowledgment cards dated 17/3/98 and 2/3/98. P10 : Two postal receipts P11 : Correction notice No.114/K.K/98 dated 10/3/98 to the opp. Party. P12 : Insurance Premium Guide P13 : Advocte notice dated 24/2/1998 to the oppo. Party.
III. Opposite party's witness: DW1 : V. Aanantha Shenoy DW2 : Sushala Abraham IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Original Fire Claim Form filled by the complainant dated 23/12/1997 D2 : Original letter dated 18/12/1997 with Ref.No.140/97 issued to the complainant by Cochin Super Coolers. D3 : Survey report on the damages to the Refrigerator cum Freezer belonging to the complaint prepared by Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor with Licence No.SLA-5910 dated 11/2/1998. D4 : Copy of letter dated 13/2/1998 issued by Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor SLA-8855 to the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
