BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.447/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.138/2007, DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR.
Between:
M/s.Vijayalaxmi Industrial Modern
Rice Mill & Oil Kalvacharla
Centenary Colony,
Kamanpur Mandal,
District Karimnagar,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Vangala Linga Reddy
S/o.Raji Reddy, aged about 46 years,
Occ:Managing Partner, R/o.Kalvacherla
Centenary Colony, V/o.Kamanpur Mandal,
Karimnagar District. Appellant/Complainant
And
1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Peddapally Branch
C/o.Doctor K.V.Rao Complex,
Pragathinagar,
Peddapalli Village & Mandal,
Karimnagar Dist.,
Rep. by its Manager.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Jyothinagar NTPC Branch,
Ramagundam, Medipally Road,
NTPC., Karimnagar Dist.,
Rep. by Divisional Manager. Respondents/Opp.parties .
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.Sambasiva Rao.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BEL MEMBER
.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBE,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Order Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in CC 138/2007 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant, M/s.Vijaya Laxmi Industries at Kamanpur, a partnership firm dealing with rice milling and oil milling works insured the same under policy bearing No.050881/11/2006/11/0288 with opposite party No.1 on 26-10-2006 till 25-10-2007 covering the risk of building for Rs.10,00,000/-, machinery and accessories for Rs.12,04,500/- and paddy for Rs.33,00,000/- thus the total sum insured was Rs.54,04,500/-. The complainant submits that accidentally in the night time on 03-3-2007 at about 6.30 a.m. he was informed by its watchman that there was a fire accident and he informed to the Fire Station authorities of Manthani and Peddapally, who came to the industry and controlled the fire upto 3.00 p.m. on 03-3-2007. The complainant submitted that after controlling the fire, the complainant found that as per stock register, category-I of stock 4,644 paddy bags, each bag containing 100 Kgs. of paddy worth Rs.720/- as per prevalent market rate worth Rs.33,43,680/- was burnt and empty gunny bags worth Rs.2,00,000/- were totally burnt. Machinery and accessories worth Rs.2,20,000/- was burnt and damaged in the fire accident and in total and the complainant sustained loss worth Rs.37,63,680/-. The Kamanpur police also investigated the fire incident and conducted Panchanama on 03-3-2007 and opined that the complainant has incurred loss of Rs.50,50,000/- due to fire accident. The complainant informed opposite party No.1 about the fire accident and loss occurred in his premises. Opposite party investigated the matter through their surveyors and concerned officials before whom the complainant produced all material documents and has given full information. The complainant submitted that opposite parties got assessed the loss of building, machinery and accessories through M.Thirupathi Reddy, Chartered Engineer, Government Register Valuer and he estimated the loss at Rs.2,20,000/- towards building, machinery and accessories.
The surveyors of the opposite parties visited the spot and surveyed the loss of paddy into 4 grades by fixing different rates as under:
1) Grade I Quintal 204.00 (292 bags)
2) Grade II Quintal 609.70 (871 bags)
3) Grade III Quintal 399.00 (570 bags)
4) Grade IV Quintal 21 (30 bags)
and assessed the above mentioned partly burnt stock for a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- and they handed over the stock to the complainant. The total loss of the stock is Rs.33,43,680/- and after deducting partly burnt stock worth Rs.5,40,000/- and the loss of paddy under category-I stock worth is Rs.28,03,680/-. Thus the complainant sustained total loss of Rs.32,23,680/- as under:
Loss of category-I stock paddy Rs.28,03,680-00
Loss of empty gunny bags of paddy Rs. 2,00,000-00
Loss of building machinery and accessories Rs. 2,20,000-00
--------------------------
Total Rs.32,23,680-00
--------------------------
The complainant submitted that he claimed fire insurance from the opposite parties as under:
1. Building Rs.1,31,763.13
2. Machinery Rs. 16,736.87
3. Paddy Rs.32,15,792.00
4.Gunny Bags Rs. 2,00,000-00
-------------------
Rs.35,64,292.00
===========
After receiving the fire insurance claim, the opposite parties have not indemnified the loss to the complainant and assessed the loss at Rs.19,46,604/-. The State Bank of Hyderabad, Kamanpur branch financed the complainant’s industry and it is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties without the knowledge and consent of the complainant gave a cheque bearing No.517594 for Rs.19,46,604/- to SBH, Kamanpur branch. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for the balance amount of Rs.12,77,076/- but the opposite parties on one reason or the other evaded the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.12,77,076/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization together with costs.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the complaint. It admitted that it issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant covering the rice mill building, plant, machinery and stocks of paddy in godown for a sum of Rs.55,04,500/- valid from 26-10-2006 to 25-10-2007. The said property was hypothecated to State Bank of Hyderabad, Kamanpur Branch and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It submitted that it received intimation from the complainant on 3-3-2007 regarding the fire accident in the premises of rice mill in which the building, machinery and stocks of paddy were burnt. Immediately on the same day, it appointed a licensed surveyor, V.Laxminarasaiah for assessing the damage. The said surveyor inspected the premises and collected the required documents and information from the complainant and submitted his report on 06-6-2007 assessing the damage at Rs.19,79,522/-. The surveyor assessed the loss based on various documents, stock registers and other documents. The damage caused to the building and machinery was visible to eyes and the same was assessed according to the settled principles and norms but the paddy bags were burnt and were reduced into ashes and it is not possible to measure the quantity of paddy and therefore the surveyor adopted various methods of assessing the damage basing on stock B-Form register, Ledger, electricity power consumption charges, Hamali charges and finally arrived at the quantity of the paddy present in the rice mill on the date of loss as 3,744.74 quintals. The surveyor has omitted 1000 quintals of paddy which was not entered in rough purchase book during the month of February, 2007, though it was entered in the B-Form register on 21-2-2007, 1000 quintals of paddy was entered. But there was no entry of this quantity in the rough register for purchase and not supported by Takpattis issued from Market Committee. Therefore, the surveyor has not considered the said 1000 quintals paddy purchased on 21-2-2007. As per the entries made in the record of complainant, one quintal paddy purchased @ Rs.623/- and after adding cess and Hamali charges fixed quintal paddy rate at Rs.634/- for assessing the loss. The surveyor deducted an amount of Rs.5,50,307/- towards salvage and Rs.10,000/- towards policy excess after satisfying regarding the quality of the left over paddy. The complainant agreed to retain the salvage and to that effect, acceptance letter was issued on 10-3-2007 and therefore the surveyor has deducted Rs.5,50,307/- towards salvage and this was accepted by the complainant. Immediately, after receiving the surveyor’s report, opposite party No.2 has processed the claim of the complainant and settled the claim for Rs.19,46,604/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy and after satisfying with the claim amount, the complainant and State Bank of Hyderabad signed the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of the claim without any protest and hence they acted promptly in settling the claim of the complainant at Rs.19,46,604/- and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It further submitted that the claim of the complainant for the balance amount of Rs.12,77,076/- is without any legal basis, not genuine and supported by any documentary evidence. u/s.64 UM (2) of Insurance Act.
Opposite party No.1 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.2.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant is running a Rice and Oil Mill under the name and style of M/s.Vijayalaxmi Industries and has insured the stocks of paddy, rice and machineries of mill covering the risk of fire accident which is evidenced under Ex.A8, the policy, the period being from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007 for an amount of Rs.55,04,500/-. It is the complainant’s case that on 3.3.2007 at 6.30 a.m. the watchman informed the complainant that a fire accident occurred in his premises due to short circuit and the stock was burnt and the machinery and accessories together with the shed was damaged. It is the further case of the complainant that he opened the godown shutters and found the paddy stocks under fire and immediately informed the same to the fire station authorities who assessed the loss at Rs.37,63,680/-. Ex.A1 is the Panchanama wherein the police stated that the damage caused in the fire accident is Rs.50,50,000/- in all along with Ex.A1 Panchanama dt.3.3.2007 a copy of the MRO assessment, is also filed which is for an amount of Rs.37,01,720/-. Ex.A2 is the Fire Station Officer’s report dt.6.3.2007 reporting the damage to be Rs.35,00,000/-. Ex.A3 is the Chartered Engineer’s report assessing the damage caused to civil works at Rs.2,20,000/-. The complainant also filed Exs.A4 and A5 which are the sheets of B Form Register giving the particulars of unpaid paddy. The complainant vide Ex.A7 claimed from the Insurance Company an amount of Rs.40 lakhs towards loss of stock and buildings. The opposite party paid an amount of Rs.19,46,604/- dt.30.7.2007 vide Ex.A10.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party should further pay an amount of Rs.12,77,076/- with interest, compensation and costs. It is the case of the opposite party that their surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.19,79,522/- vide Ex.B3 report dt.9.5.2007. The opposite parties further contended that without any objection, the complainant received Rs.19,46,604/- and thereafter filed this case. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the opposite parties did not consider the stock of 1000 quintals of paddy inspite of the fact that there is an entry in the Form B Register and also in the Day Book at page 329 about 1000 quintals. The District Forum observed that the complainant did not file page 329 showing the entry of 1000 quintals. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant drew our attention to page 329 of the original Day Book dt.21.2.2007 filed before this Commission which shows an entry of 1000 quintals valued at Rs.650/- per quintal amounting to Rs.6,50,000/-. The total stock as on 21.2.2007 is depicted in the day of that day is Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.23,826/- equivalent to Rs.6,73,826/- . It is not in dispute that the fire accident took place on 3.3.2007 and as seen from the following sheets of the Register i.e. page 330 to 339 there are no statements contradicting this entry.
It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant and his bank have signed the voucher towards full and final satisfaction for an amount of Rs.19,46,604/- and now the complainant cannot turn around for the balance amount of his claim. As against this, the complainant states in his affidavit that the cheque was given by the opposite party to the Bank without his knowledge and consent and the bank credited this amount to his loan account. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that though the surveyor of the opposite party has signed in the Form B Register and the Day Book he did not consider the entry of 1000 quintals and that the certificate issued from the Market Committee stating the rate of the paddy as on that date has also been filed in support of his case. The complainant claims that he sustained a loss of Rs.32,23,680/- and categorized the loss as under :
Loss of Category I Stock Paddy : Rs.28,03,680/-
Loss of Empty gunny bags of paddy : 2,00,000/-
Loss of building machinery and accessories : 2,20,000/-
Total Rs.32,23,680/-
The learned counsel for the respondents/opp.parties also filed written arguments stating that the surveyor’s assessment is right. The appellant/complainant filed a brief calculation data in which the complainant stated as follows:
“ Opening stocks of paddy as on 1-4-2006 4,968 Qtls.
(as per para 8.1 of Ex.B2 Survey Report)
+ Purchases from 4/06 to February 2007 10,126.68
___________
15,094
Less given to milling from 4/2006 to 2/07 10,350
__________
Quantity supposed to have been involved
in fire accident,, as per Books 4,744 Qtls.”
___________
He further contended that the surveyor in para 8.1.3 of the report did not rely upon the Bank stock statements and in para 8.4.2 did not consider the purchase of 1000 quintals made in February, 2007 and in para 8.6 he mentioned that as per Form B Register the stock was 4,744 Qtls. To reiterate, we observe that the complainant has filed original Form B Register which shows page 3 to 9 entry of 1000 quintals which if we take it at the market rate of Rs.630/- per quintal as assessed by the surveyor for Grade I paddy it will come to Rs.6,30,000/- .The other claims of the complainant with respect to assessment of the building value at Rs.1,31,763/- and to assess the gunny bags value at Rs.2 lakhs is disallowed in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of his claims. The salvage claim of the complainant is disallowed in view of the acceptance letter (Ex.B2) issued by the complainant himself.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6,30,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5000/- Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DT. 29.11.2010
