BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1500/2008 against C.C. 37/2008, Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
B.Md. Eliyas, S/o. B. Md. Ismail
Proprietor, B.G. Hussain Saw Mill
40/39, Bangarupet,
Kurnool. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
The Divisional Manager
United India Insurance Company
40/304, Mourya Inn Complex
Bhagyanagar, Kurnool. *** Respondent/
O.P.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. D. Ranganath Kumar
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. S. Venkateswarlu
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETY DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he had taken Standard Fire and Special Peril policy on his saw mill covering the period from 23.12.2006 to 22.12.2007 and another policy covering the period from 28.4.2007 to 27.4.2008 for Rs. 3 lakhs. While so on 22.6.2007 the premises was sub-merged in flood waters and it carried away the timber kept outside the business premises to an extent of Rs. 5,15,000/-. Immediately he lodged a complaint to the police as well as revenue authorities and the insurance company. He was always maintaining more than Rs. 10 lakhs worth of stock in the business premises evident from statements recorded by the bankers. Both policies cover building and stock in trade which includes plant and machinery. When he made claim, a surveyor was deputed. He checked the figures in the account books and informed that he would submit his report to the insurance company. The claim was repudiated on 25.9.2007 and therefore he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 6 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., together with Rs. 25, 000/- towards compensation towards mental agony and costs.
3) The insurance company resisted the case however it admitted the issuance of policy. On receipt of claim it has deputed a surveyor who visited the premises on 27.6.2007 itself. The complainant informed that due to flood water the main gate lock was opened. The surveyor opined that there was no chance of lock being opened without damage to the lock. He observed that the lock was in good working condition. He also opined that there was no indication of stock loss. The insurance policy covers only stock of timber but not machinery and building. The complainant had failed to submit FIR, statement to the revenue authorities, final report, stock register, invoices, way bills etc., and therefore the repudiation was just. There was no deficiency in service on its part 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 A6 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager and filed Exs. B1 to B5 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant did not furnish the details of investigation of police or revenue authorities showing that the stock was lost in the floods. Apart from it the complainant had made divergent statements pertaining to the loss of stock. At one juncture he states at Rs. 7 lakhs and at another juncture at Rs. 6 lakhs. While both the policies cover the risk to the stocks and premises of the complainant’s saw mill, it opined that the complainant was not entitled to any of the amounts, and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said the decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he has taken the policies called ‘Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy’ covering the period from 23.12.2006 to 22.12.2007 and another policy covering the period from 28.4.2007 to 27.4.2008 for Rs. 3 lakhs each covering the risk of all types of timber stored or lying in open in the premises or occupied as saw mill. The surveyor had admitted that there were heavy rains, and the insured premises was submerged up to 6’ due to rain/flood water on the intervening night of 22/23-6-2007 and the entire stock was washed away. Out of Rs. 10 lakhs worth of stock only Rs. 3 lakhs stock was remained while the remaining stock was lost. Therefore he prayed that an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs be awarded together with compensation and costs.
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 policy covering the period from 23.12.2006 to 22.12.2007 and another policy covering the period from 28.4.2007 to 27.4.2008 for Rs. 3 lakhs each covering the saw mill vide Ex. A1 & A2. Though initially an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was covered under the first policy later it was enhanced to Rs. 6 lakhs in view of the fact that the bank had enhanced the credit limit. The second policy covers the plant and machinery also. The claim pertains to loss of timber stocks kept in the premises of the saw mill. There is no dispute that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2007 there were heavy rains and the saw mill was submerged under flood water. The complainant alleges that the stock worth Rs. 6 lakhs was washed away along with certain documents kept in the premises. When the claim was submitted the very insurance company had appointed a surveyor. He visited the premises on 27.6.2007 and found that the “insured premises looked like it was submerged up to 6’ due to heavy rain/flood water on the intervening night of 22/23-6-2007. It was found that the motors/machinery were submerged and damaged. However, the policy does not cover the machinery. As per the insured, the closed main gate lock was opened due to the force of floods water. There is no chance of opening of lock, without damage to the lock. But when I observed the lock, it was in good working condition. If it was opened due to flood water, it would have been damaged. The stocks were submerged but there is no indication of stock loss.” He had also taken photographs enclosed to his report marked as Ex. B1. After receipt of surveyor report, the very insurance company addressed a letter to the Dist. Forest Range Officer under Ex. B4 to inform as to the loss of stock of timber. The Forest Range Officer by his letter Ex. B5 has categorically informed that “ M/s. B.G. Hussain Saw Mills, Kurnool have reported loss of Rs. 7 lakhs. We furnish copies of III B formats submitted by them. They have not produced any proof of loss nor did they pursue with us for inspection. So it is concluded by the department that there is no loss to their stocks.”
9) The complainant though alleged that he had given report to the police, various revenue authorities and others but did not file any document in order to appreciate his version about the loss of stock. Obviously in order to show the value of stock he filed Ex. A5 & A6 borrower’s statement as on 3012.2006 and 31.3.2007. These statements were not certified by the bank to prove the existence of stock at lest before the date of inundation. Statements pertaining to 30.12.2006 may not be sufficient to prove that the complainant has stock worth more than Rs. 6 lakhs by the date of inundation and consequent loss. He could have filed the statements submitted by him to the bank in order to find out as to the exact stock that was existing by the date when the inundation had taken place. When the very crucial aspect pertaining to the value of stock was not proved the Dist. Forum was right in rejecting the claim.
10) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainant had failed to prove the value of stock on the date of incident and subsequent loss thereof. It is not known why the complainant did not inform immediately. It was informed three days after the incident. The complainant must have filed with the bank whatever information he has to show that he has purchased the logs and kept in the saw mill. Undoubtedly it would know the parties from whom he had purchased the logs and corresponding entries from whom he purchased stocks. Simply because he had taken the insurance policy it does not mean that he would be entitled to the amount unless he proves that there was loss of stock. Since the Forest Range Officer has confirmed that they were not invited to verify the loss of stock and that there was no proof in fact there was loss of stock, the report of the Forest Range Officer has to be given due weight he being a public servant. Therefore the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim for want of evidence. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 30. 11. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
