BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1502/2008 against C.C. 38/2008,   Dist. Forum, Kurnool.   

Between:

B. Rasheed Ahmed,

S/o. B. Gulam Hussains

Proprietor, R.R. Timbers

40/39-2, Bangarupet,

Kurnool.                                                     ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant

                                                                   And

The Divisional Manager

United India Insurance Company

40/304, Mourya Inna 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  for Rs. 3.50 lakhs  and another policy covering the period from 28.4.2007 to 27.4.2008 for Rs. 7.50 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. 3 lakhs.     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.11  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 A5 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its  Divisional Manager and filed Exs. B1 to B7 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. 1.60 lakhs and at another juncture at Rs. 3 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. 3.50 lakhs  and Rs. 7.50 lakhs  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.    The record would undoubtedly show that he lost the stock worth  Rs.11 lakhs.  Therefore he prayed that an amount of Rs. 11 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 for Rs. 3.50  lakhs  and another policy covering the period from 28.4.2007 to 27.4.2008 for Rs. 7.50 lakhs  covering the saw mill vide Ex. A1& A2.  Though initially  an amount of Rs. 3.50  lakhs was covered  under the first policy later it was enhanced to  Rs. 7.50  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. 11 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. B5.     After receipt of surveyor report, the very insurance company addressed a letter  to the  Dist. Forest Range Officer  under Ex. B6  to inform as to the loss of  stock of timber.  The Forest Range Officer  by  his letter Ex. B7  has categorically informed that “ M/s.  R. R. Timbers, Bangarpet  have reported loss of Rs. 3 lakhs.  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  borrower’s  statement as on  26.1.2007, 23.2.2007  and 31.3.2007.  These statements were not certified by the bank to prove the existence of stock at least 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. 11 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.”