FA.No.945/2008 against CC.No.923/2007 District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.

Between:

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rep. by its Regional Manager,

6-3-871, Snehalatha Building,

Greenlands Road, Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

M/s.Sai Boda Hotels,

Rep. by its Managing Partner,

Sri B.Raviraj, S/o.Sri B.Chithambaram,

Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business,

Office 11-5-431, Red Hills,

Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant                :  Mr.G.Dinesh Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent            :  Mr.M.Nageswara Rao.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER,

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

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

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad awarding Rs.3,80,000/- towards damage to the  compound wall together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that it was a proprietary concern doing small business and insured the premises for Rs.1  While so, on 25.04.2005 due to the thunderstorm and rain the compound wall of the building was collapsed and he sustained a loss of Rs.3  When he made claim, it was repudiated by letter dated 23.05.2006 on the ground that the compound wall was not covered by the terms of the policy.  Thereupon, he filed the complaint claiming Rs.3

3.         The Insurance Company resisted the case.  While admitting issuance of policy, it alleged that there was no liability on its part to pay compensation.  In fact a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss.  It further mentioned that the compound wall was not covered under the terms of the policy.  Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

4.         The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9.  The Insurance Company did not file any documents, however filed affidavit evidence of its officer.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the compound wall which was damaged would be part of the building, and therefore, it was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, and therefore, directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the compound wall that was damaged in the rain and thunderstorm was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy, and therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation and therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the Insurance Company insured the hotel building of the complainant under Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy for the period commencing from 10.02.2005 to 09.02.2006 for Rs.1,25,000/-.  It is also not in dispute that on 25.04.2005  due to thunderstorm and rain the compound wall of the building was collapsed.  In fact, the insurance Company appointed one G.Rama Murthy, a Surveyor, who visited the place and submitted his report dated 27.05.2005.  The District Forum, however, did not assign any exhibit number to this survey report.  He assessed the loss at Rs.2  The Insurance Company could not show any ground whatsoever as to why the estimate made by the surveyor cannot be accepted.  The surveyor himself has noted that at the time of his visit he noticed that the compound wall was collapsed.  He also opined that

            “The most plausible explanation for the collapse of the compound wall is that the vacant area on the northern side of the premises is being dug up for construction of a multistoried complex.  A huge crater like hole on the ground was dug up there for the footings of the building.  The soil for the huge hole in the ground would be removed using heavy duty dumpers, the buckets of which bang and hit the earth with tremendous force.  The continuous impact/hitting of the ground could have loosened the up the CRS/foundations of the compound wall.  This coupled with the continuous downpour/thunder storm could have led to the soil erosion from the underside of the CRS wall and could have lcaused the unsettlement of the CRS wall of the compound wall causing it to collapse.  The entire length of the compound wall admeasuring about 82 feet had collapsed.  The water fountain arrangements on the inside of the wall collapsed/crumpled.  The Dholpur cladding also had to be replaced.  The water reservoir for the water falls has to be rebuilt.  The MS grill fixed on the top of the compound wall also collapsed and was bent.  The grill has to be refabricated and fixed.”

The Insurance Company could not show that the compound wall does not form part of the policy terms.  We may state herein that the Insurance Company has raised   Obviously, the compound wall around the building is constructed in order to protect the property.  Had such a demarcation is not there, the policy could not have been issued assessing the property value.  The Insurance Company could not show that the compound wall does not form part of the terms.  In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum was correct in stating that the compound wall also forms part of the building for which the Insurance Company has issued policy. 

9.         The complainant could not show that the survey made by the surveyor at Rs.2  No independent investigation was made by the complainant through any other surveyor. The surveyor in his report appended details of the estimate towards loss of wall.  We have gone through the report and we are of the opinion that the complainant was entitled to the amount of Rs.2  The repudiation of the claim was unjust.  The compensation that was awarded was reasonable.  In fact the District Forum did not award any

10.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,78,454/- in stead of Rs.3,80,000/- awarded by District Forum towards damage of the compound wall together with compensation of Rs.20,000.- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  No costs in this appeal.  The complainant is directed to withdraw whatever the amount that was deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of granting stay.       

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

MEMBER

DtVvr.