JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant M/s. Madhava & Company by its partner Narasimhalu against the Opposite United Insurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for direct the opposite to pay a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest for the loss sustained in the fire accident of the cotton, to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with cost and interest with other reliefs as deems fit. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, M/s. Madhav & Company is in operation of stocks of cotton, getting it ginned and pressed in other factories since (25) years. Floater policy of the Industrial Manufacturing risk for cotton ginning & pressing was obtained from the Opposite Insurance Company Ltd., with place of location as listed in the Insurance Policy. On 11-12-07 at 9-00 PM he moved 65 Docras of cotton after ginning to the premises R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited. The said transfer of the stock was intimated to Opposite for coverage of risk on 12-12-07 acknowledgement was made by the Insurance Company. On 14-12-07 fire accident took place in R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited, in the said accident his 32 Docras out of 65 of cotton damage due to fire. He sustained loss of Rs. 3,25,000/- out of the fire accident as his 52 quintals of cotton destroyed in the said fire. He intimated the same to the Opposite Insurance Company. Surveyor as appointed but his claim was repudiated on untenable grounds in-spite of oral and repeated requests and thereby the Opposite Insurance Company found guilty under deficiency in its service towards him. 3. The Opposite Insurance Company appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying all the allegations made against it. It is contended that claim intimation given to it on 17-12-07 with regard to fire accident dt. 14-12-07 at R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited, Raichur which is in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no intimation with regard to change of location of risk. In-view of the said facts the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any claim amount as there was no deficiency in its service and thereby it requested to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he moved 65 Docras of seedless cotton after ginning to the factory premises of R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. on 11-12-07 at 9-00 PM for the purposes of pressing it and he informed the change of place to the Opposite Company immediately i.e, on 12-12-07 and the acknowledgement of it by the Opposite and thereafter on 14-12-07 35 Docras out of 65 Docras of cotton gutted fire he sustained heavy loss to the extent of Rs. 3,25,000/- he informed the said fire accident immediately to the Opposite Insurance Company and requested to consider his claim petition in oral as well as in writing but Opposite Insurance Company is showing its negligence in settling his claim even though his goods covered under Standard Fire and Special Policy with its location and thereby Opposite Insurance Company found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the partner of the complainants firm was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 are marked. 7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Divisional Manager of Opposite Insurance Company was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Surveyors Report was marked as Ex.R-1. 8. On appreciation of the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and their respective documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 and Ex.R-1 we are of the view that there are two points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: (1) whether fire accident took place at M/s. R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited, Raichur on 14-12-07 which is a place not covered under the policy No. 240200/11/7/13/00000/697. (2) As per the terms and conditions of the policy any claim arise out of the fire accident should be immediately intimated to the Opposite Insurance Company or to the policy issued office. But in this case claim intimation was given by the complainants firm after three days of the date of accident therefore the claim of complainant is liable for rejection. 9. To consider the above Point No-1, we have to appreciate relevant document Ex.P-1 which is letter given by the complainants firm to the Opposite Insurance Company to include R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited which is dated 12-12-07. The said letter was acknowledged by the Opposite Insurance Company on the same day at 4-00 PM. Receipt of this letter from the complainants firm and acknowledging by it by Opposite Insurance Company cannot be denied by the Opposite. Even though one of this ground made for repudiating the claim of the complainant among two grounds. According to the affidavit-evidence and as per letter Ex.P-1, the complainant moved his 65 Docras of cotton on 11-12-07 at 9-00 PM in the premises of R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited. This letter was acknowledged by the Opposite Insurance Company on the same day at 4-00 PM without raising any objections for moving of said cotton docras to the premises of R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited, Raichur at that time thereafter also it not raised any objections for the said act of complainant, as such we are of the view that Opposite Insurance Company has accepted the change of place stock to the premises of R.A.P.M. & P.C.S. Limited., Raichur vide Ex.P-1, by tacit consent under the said circumstances we are of the view that the said reason for repudiating the claim of complainant is without any justification accordingly we have rejected this contention of Opposite Insurance Company for repudiating the claim of complainant. 10. The second point for our consideration is whether the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the said policy as he has not intimated the fire accident immediately to the policy issued office or to the office concerned, it is contended by Opposite Insurance Company that the complainants firm given claim intimation after three days of fire accident, hence the claim of complainant is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. To appreciate this fact, document Ex.P-3 is a material, it is a letter of intimation regarding fire accident given by the complainants firm to the Opposite Insurance Company office at Raichur it is dated 15-12-07 and this letter was acknowledged by the Opposite Insurance Company by putting its seal on Ex.P-3 as 17-12-07. The learned Advocate for complainant gave explanation for the delay caused to submit it to the Opposite Insurance Company. On 16-12-07 there was a Sunday as such it was received by the Opposite Insurance Company on 17-12-07. The learned Advocate for Opposite Insurance Company denied such explanation. 11. We are of the view that the explanations given by the learned Advocate for complainant for delay in communicating the fire accident to the Insurance Company are seems to be proper and genuine reason. Insurance Company is not working on Sunday as such intimation was given on 17-12-07. The delay is not a matter for rejection of the claim of the complainant, it is subjected to explanation and more over such breach is not a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy. Under the said circumstances we are of the view that such delay two days cannot be made ground for rejection of the claim of complainant, as such we have not convinced from the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for Opposite Insurance Company. 12. The Report of surveyor Ex.P-23(1) & Ex.P-23(2) are supporting our view hence Ex.P-10 letter of repudiation is not based on proper and genuine grounds, as such we are of the view that Opposite Insurance Company failed in discharging its legal obligation under the policy towards the complainant such we are of the view that this Opposite Insurance Company found guilty under deficiency in its service towards complainants firm, accordingly we answered in Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regards to the first relief claimed by the complainant, he requested us to direct the Opposite Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- as regards to loss sustained by him in the fire accident. In support of his claim he filed document Ex.P-4 regarding the loss sustained due to fire accident. Ex.P-5 is the certificate issued by APMC, Raichur. Ex.P-6 the certificate issued by Rajeev Corporation Raichur. 14. The Opposite Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the place of fire accident and assessed the loss vide his report at Ex.R-1. According to him the Net loss assessed is to the extent of Rs. 2,17,111/-. No doubt the complainant has filed the above said documents in support of his clam. Among the said documents we are of the view that the surveyor who was appointed by the Government under the Insurance Act and his report is an important vital piece of evidence. The surveyor report cannot be ignored in pursuance of the above said documents of the complainant. ( (1) VI 2009(2) CPR 202 (NC) (2) VI 2009 (2) CPR 218 (NC)). In the instant case the complainant assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 3,25,000/- however the surveyor has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,17,111/- there is no much difference in between the said documents. As such we are of the view that accepting the surveyors report is safe instead of accepting the documents of the complainant in this regard, as such we have accepted the Net loss to the extent of Rs. 2,17,111/- due to the said fire accident as assessed by the surveyor in his report at Ex.R-1. Hence complainant is entitled for to recover an amount of Rs. 2,17,111/- from the Opposite Insurance Company. 15. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Insurance Company as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Opposite under the head of deficiency in service and thereby we have rejected the prayer of complainant for to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 16. As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost from Opposite Insurance Company. 17. As regards to the claim of interest by the complainant at the rate of 24% p.a. is excessive, exorbitant, there are no such special circumstances out coming to grant such higher rate of interest, however we have taken into consideration of the entire case of the complainant and the loss sustained by him due to fire accident, we are of the view that granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 2,22,111/- which is rounded to Rs. 2,22,000/- accordingly we answered Point No-1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 18. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 2,22,000/- from the Opposite Insurance Company. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 2,22,000/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. Intimate the parties accordingly. Opposite Party is hereby given One month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-07-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
