BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1085/2007 against C.D. 160/2005, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar

Between:

M/s. Chatraparthi Corporation

Rep. by its Managing Partner

Pola Rama Kistaiah, S/o. Mallaiah,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Business

H.No. 1-5-261

Bharath Talkies Area

Karimnagar. *** Appellant/

Complainant

And

The Branch Manager

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

H.No. 3-5-83, First Floor

Osmanpura

Karimnagar. *** Respondent/

Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant M/s. V. Gouri Shankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. K.N.V. Radha Krishna.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1) Dis-satisfied with inadequate compensation awarded by the Dist. Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was doing business in food grains such as maize, red gram, caster seed etc. and stored the stocks in godown at Karimnagar. He obtained standard fire and special peril insurance policy for Rs. 7 lakhs from the respondent insurance company for the period from 8.4. 2004 to 7.10.2004. While so on 21.7.2004 he was informed by his watchman that due to electrical short circuit the stock was burnt. On receipt of information, the fire station personnel came and extinguished the fire. The stock worth Rs. 9,86,063/- was destroyed.

On a report the police registered a case in Crime No. 243/2004 and opined that it was accidental. When he made claim the insurance company was postponing, and as such finally after issuing notice filed the complaint claiming Rs. 7 lakhs with interest, compensation and costs.

3) The insurance company resisted the case. However, it admitted that the policy was issued for Rs. 7 lakhs on stocks of food grains and oil seeds in the premises bearing H.No. 1-5-261. Later they came to know that this premises was not in the list of godowns furnished to the sales tax department. Evidently, after due deliberation and consultations he made an excess and exorbitant claim. There was delay in lodging FIR giving rise to suspicion about the quality of the food grains and oil seeds stores in the godown. Immediately after intimation it had appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. He noted that there was discrepancy in the house numbers. The door number of the premises is 1-5-275 whereas the policy was issued in respect of H.No. 1-5-261. The opening stock position as on 1.4.2004 was in variation with closing stock position as on 31.3.2004. Accordingly estimate was made by taking the dimensions of the premises and assessed the damage of stock at Rs. 51,175/-. After deducting salvage value and policy excess, the net loss was assessed at Rs. 29,975/-. The entire stocks were not burnt. Apart from this policy the complainant had taken another policy for Rs. 10 lakhs from United India Insurance Company. If compensation is apportioned it would be liable to pay Rs. 12,343/- out of total claim approved at Rs. 29,975/-. Accordingly it had sent its letter Dt. 1.8.2005 to the complainant. The United Indian Insurance Company which has given policy as well as the ING Vysya bank which had lent the amount are necessary parties and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A20 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager and got Exs. B1 to B7 marked.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined the complainant obtained two policies for the same stock for the same period and raised loan from ING Vysya bank. They were not impleaded as parties despite the contention taken by the insurance company in this regard. In view of the fact that United India Insurance Company had insured the very same stocks for Rs. 10 lakhs and accepting the assessment made by the surveyor at Rs. 29,975/- respondent insurance company was directed to pay proportionate amount of Rs. 12,335/- with interest and costs.

6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen the original stock register Ex. A20, monthly turn over for April 2004 vide Ex. A15 and statement of trading account for the period 1.4.2004 to 22.7.2004 vide Ex. A18 and ought to have awarded the entire compensation claimed by it. There is no provision for taking another insurance policy for the stocks from United India Insurance Company. The compensation awarded was inadequate and therefore prayed that the complaint filed by him be allowed in toto with benefits.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had taken standard fire and special peril insurance policy on stocks of food grains and oil seeds for Rs. 7 lakhs from the respondent insurance company for the period from 8.4. 2004 to 7.10.2004. Admittedly on the intervening night of 21/22 .7.2004 there was a fire accident due to short circuit wherein part of the stocks were gutted. On a report by the complainant, the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 243/2004 vide Ex. A2 wherein the complainant noted the damaged grain bags and house loss amounting to Rs. 8,74,188/-. He noted the premises as H.No. 1-5-261, Bharath Talkies, Karimnagar. Even in Ex. A1 policy the property insured is noted as situated at 1-5-261, Near Bharath Talkies, Karimnagar. The police after investigation opined that the accident was due to electrical short circuit vide Ex. A4 final report. It was mentioned that “as per the reports of the electrical department and fire station it is revealed that the incident occurred due to failure of internal electrical wiring and the damage was worth Rs. 4,90,000/-. Whether the said amount includes loss of building and also material was not known. However, the police opined that

“I have verified the records and the version of eye witness the total damage to a tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant with an intention to claim more money from insurance company there is ambiguity with the version of complainant and report of the fire officer. Therefore this case is liable to be referred as accidental fire.” .

The Surveyor in his report Ex. B3 mentioned that there is a discrepancy in the door numbers. At any rate the opening stock position as on 1.4.2004 is differing with closing stock position as on 31.3.2004. He found some of the stocks were partially burnt. Some of them were empty gunny bags. The unaffected stocks lying consists of 125 qtls of maize, 25 qtls of caster seed, and 40 bags of jawar. He found that only few gunny bags containing maize, caster and jawar were burnt. He also noted that 180 bags of maize, 56 bags of assorted and 25 bags of caster were partially damaged due to fire and also due to water used in extinguishing the fire. He finally observed that total stocks worth Rs. 51,175/- was damaged viz., 15 qtls of maize, 40 qtls of jawar and 1 qtl of caster. He assessed the net loss at Rs. 29,975/-.

9) It is important to note that the complainant’s banker was ING Vysya bank. It has taken a policy with United India Insurance Company Limited for Rs. 10 lakhs for the same period from 29.9.2003 to 28.9.2004. On a report the United India Insurance Company also appointed a surveyor who in turn visited the premises and assessed the loss at Rs. 29,975/- evidenced under Ex. B4. Despite the fact that the insurance company had taken a plea that the very premises was equally insured with another insurance company which has also estimated the loss and specifically pleaded that they should be impleaded lest the complaint is bad under law, the complainant did not choose to implead those parties. It is not known why the complainant did not implead them.

10) We may mention here that the complainant has filed C.D. 162/2005 for the loss sustained to its building wherein a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded which was confirmed in the appeal F.A. 1700/2006. The complainant could not explain as to how the premises would accommodate 1009.2 qtls of food grains. There is no reason why the complainant did not furnish record relating to the godown to the sales tax department. He could not explain the stock position as per the books when physical inspection was made in the premises. The discrepancies mentioned by the insurance company was not explained by the complainant. These monthly turn over or statement of trading account were not audited. He ought to have filed a detailed affidavit mentioning the value of stocks as on the date of accident by referring to records, registers etc.

11) In the light of scanty evidence produced by the complainant, we are unable to grant any more compensation than that was awarded by the Dist. Forum. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.

12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT

2) ________________________________

MEMBER

Dt. 31. 05. 2010.

*pnr