DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  20^th day of January  2016

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                                     Date of filing: 10/11/2014

(C.C.No.169/2014)

K.C.Noorudheen,

S/o.Chinnathambi Rawther,

Soap House,  Harikkara Street,

Sultanpet, Palakkad Taluk                                           -           Complainant

(By Party in Person) 

Vs

The Divisional Manager

M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

IIIrd Floor, Builtech Foundation,

Chittur Road, Palakkad.                                              -           Opposite parties

(By Adv.P.Ramachandran)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant is running a provisional store in the name and style  Yeeman Traders in a rented premises having municipality door No.11/1158 situated behind the Municipal bus stand, Palakkad. The complainant’s shop was subjected to a fire accident on 09/8/2014 at about 4.45 a.m. due to short circuit. It is submitted that as result of the accident  the shop and the provisions and other grocery items stocked therein were completely damaged by which the complainant suffered a financial loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.

It is submitted that the complainant’s shop is duly insured with the opposite party under the coverage of fire and theft policy for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as per a valid policy of insurance dated 8/10/2013 by which the coverage starts from 22/10/2013 to 21/10/2014 and the complainant had paid the premium. After the accident the factum of accident was duly informed to the opposite party and their invigilators visited the shop of the complainant on 10/8/2014 itself and taken note of the entire things. Believing the words of the opposite party, complainant had went to their office on 18/8/2014, 28/8/2014, 17/9/2014, 27/09/2014, 09/10/2014 and 20/10/2014 and was  running from pillar to post with the demand to give due compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant. They have not so far paid any single penny to the complainant. It is the bounden duty and liability of the opposite party to pay due compensation to the complainant for the loss and damages suffered and the complainant is legally entitled to get the same.  That the total inaction on the side of the opposite party is a deficiency in service which causes much mental agony and hardships to the complainant in addition to imposing him great financial loss and loss of time.

Hence complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay  Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and for loss of time and energy and cost of the proceedings.

After admitting the complaint issued notice to opposite party and they filed  version contending the following.

Opposite party specifically denies the allegations that he had suffered loss of Rs.5,00,000/- in the alleged incident. The opposite party contented that the documents produced by the complainant, the certificate alleged to have issued by the SI of Police Town North Police Station and the report alleged to have prepared by the station officer, fire and rescue station, Palakkad were not reliable and trustworthy. These documents were issued without verifying the goods kept in the shop and also assessing its value. Their assessments were based  on guess work.  This opposite party offered to settle the matter on the basis of the assessment prepared by the qualified surveyor. But complainant declined to accept the assessment of the surveyor. The surveyor has given copy of his assessment to the complainant also. The complainant has not challenged the surveyor’s report. The complainant  declined to produce his stock register and purchase bills inspite of repeated requests. Opposite party already paid Rs.95000/- to the complainant through his bank Punjab National Bank. Hence there was no deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Moreover opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the consumer protection act and complainant will not come under the purview of the act. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A3 are marked from the side of the complainant. Ext B1  B1(a) and  Ext B2 are marked from the side of opposite parties.

The following issues are considered

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1&2

Heard. We have perused the documents filed by both parties. Opposite party admitted the policy and the alleged fire accident. Opposite party contended that they have acted promptly and paid the loss assessed by the surveyor without any delay. Complainant admitted at the time the cross examination Punjab national bank informed him that the cheque of  Rs.95,000/- is deposited by the insurance company. But that he has not received the amount . Complainant did  not produce nothing to show that he had the loss of Rs.5,00,000/- by fire. In Ext B1 survey report , surveyor mentioned that the complainant has not produced any of the books of accounts, purchase bill, sales bill, sales tax returns and stock statement given to the bank. Complainant deposed at the time of cross examination that shop has registration and he has given sales tax. On the basis of deposition of complainant, opposite party filed IA 353/15 to cause production of sales tax returns for two years. But the complainant filed affidavit stating that no such documents in his custody. Even at the stage of evidence complainant did not produce above mentioned documents to show that the complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Complainant challenged the surveyor report submitted by the approved surveyor appointed by the opposite party. Report of surveyor is an important and substantial piece of evidence unless it is controverter by cogent and convincing reasons. Complainant has not laid any cogent or convincing reason to rebut the survey report. 

In the above circumstances, we rely upon the survey report submitted by the surveyor and we came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is only entitled to get an amount of Rs.95,000/- from the opposite party.  In the result complaint dismissed. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of  January  2016.

            Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant.

Ext.A1 –  Copy of the policy of insurance issued to the complainant by the opposite party

                 dated 8/10/13

Ext.A2  -  True copy of the certificate issued by the SI of police, Town North Police    

                  Station dated 22/8/2014

Ext.A3 – True copy of the report issued by the station officer, fire and rescue station,

                Palakkad.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – K.C.Noorudheen

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.B1 –  Copy of Surveyor Report prepared by P.Sugumaran

Ext.B1(a) – Photocopy of stock list as on 09/08/2014.

Ext.B2 – CD & Photographs

Witness examined  on the side of opposite party

 DW1 – Sugumaran  

Cost 

 No cost allowed.