BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.300/2013 against C.C.No.144/2012 District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada.
Between:
Ravuri Venkateswarlu S/o.Seetaramaiah
Hindu, aged 82 years, Business,
Proprietor of M/s.Industrial and
Agricultural Corporation
D.No.27-6-113, Prakasam Road,
Governorpet, Vijayawada,
Krishna District. ..Appellant/
complainant.
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager
CBO-1, Door No.29-36-34,
Museum Road, Governorpet
Vijayawada-2, Krishna District. Respondent/
Opp.party.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Narasimha Rao Gudiseva
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.K.N.V.Radha Krishna.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)
***
The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the orders passed by the District Forum whereby the District Forum while dismissing the complaint i.e. C.C.No.144/2012 on 22-2-2013 refused to award any compensation as claimed.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is doing business in lubricant oils in the name of M/s Industrial and Agricultural Corporation in Vijayawada and eking out his likelihood with that business. He obtained a policy called Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite party on 30-4-2010 covering the period from 06-5-2010 to 05-5-2011 in continuation of previous policy. In the early hours of 16-12-2010 the roof of the upstair of shop building fell on the ground floor roof and the ground floor roof fell on the lubricants stock kept in the shop of the complainant in the ground floor and stock worth Rs.2,70,180/- was wholly damaged and some stock worth Rs.69,275.45 was partially damaged out of the total stock of Rs.5,76,438.51 ps. The complainant informed the accident to the SHO , Governorpeta Police Station and he inspected the stock and confirmed the fact of damage. The complainant also informed the opposite party and the surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected the premises and confirmed the damage to stock but the opposite party sent a letter dated 02-8-2011 expressing its inability to settle the claim as fall or collapse of roof of the slab does not fall under the scope of the policy and the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Alleging that the said act amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 11-4-2012 and approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,54,743.15 ps. towards cost of damaged stock under the policy together with Rs.1 lakh towards damages.
The opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint. It contended that the terms and coverage of the insurance policy are binding on the parties and the claim of the complainant is not within the purview of the insurance policy taken by the complainant. The policy provides for basic cover for an assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Terrorism for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and earthquake cover for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and only these types of risks are covered but the complainant sustained loss due to fall of roof and therefore is not covered by the policy. The police had not registered any complaint as to the incident and damage suffered by the complainant and submitted that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
After perusing the entire material on record including Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.B1 and B2, the District Forum refused to award any compensation as claimed.
As stated supra, the said order is questioned in this appeal before us.
It may be apt to refer to the policy which was taken by the appellant and the policy covers the following set of perils:
Perils covered
- Fire
- Lightning
- Explosion/implosion
- Aircraft damage
- Riot, strike, Malicious damage (RSMD Perils)
- Storm, Tempest, Flood, Inundation, Hurricane, Cyclone, Typhoon and Tornado (STFI).
- Impact by any Rail/Road vehicle or animal belonging to third parties.
- Subsidence/Landslide including rockslide
- Bursting and/or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus
- Leakage form Automatic Sprinkler Installation
- Missile Testing operation
- Pollution or contamination resulting from any of the above perils
- Any insured peril resulting from pollution and contamination
- Bush Fire.
From a perusal of the said items which are covered, it may appear to be that an incident of this nature is not covered and there is no need for the insurance company to honour the said claim but the circumstances clearly indicate that the incident which happened clearly falls within the perils which are covered under the policy. Otherwise there is no meaning in taking a policy of this nature. The name of the policy itself is STANDARD FIRE AND SPEICAL PERILS POLICY. This Commission has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the incident of this nature is squarely covered by the perils which are mentioned in the policy. Clause ‘h’ deals with Subsidence/Landslide included rockslide and if we go to the true meaning of the said peril, which is included in the policy, it can definitely be inferred as loss. Whereas the District Forum held that if damage is caused to the building or if roof of the building had fallen because of sinking of the land of which structure land was caving in of the land on which the building is raised then it may be taken to have happened because of subsidence and in the present case there is absolutely no material to show that the roof of the building had fallen because of some disturbance in the ground due to subsidence or due to sinking of whole or any part of the building which we disagree. In our considered opinion, the policy itself is named as Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and we hold that incidents of this nature also shall be included in the special perils and simply because an incident of this nature is not included in the said perils, the same cannot be rejected. The incident which took place on 16-12-2010 is that roof of the upstair of shop building fell on the ground floor roof and the ground floor roof fell on the lubricants stock kept in the shop of the complainant in the ground floor an stock worth Rs.2,70,180/- was wholly damaged and some stock worth Rs.69,275.45 was partially damaged. There is no dispute with regard to the damage caused, the surveyor who inspected the premises has categorically given a finding and the said report is marked as Ex.B2 dated 22-3-2011. If an instance of this nature is not covered under the said policy, there is no meaning or justification in obtaining the policy. Apparently the stock was damaged due to unavoidable circumstances i.e. falling of the roof of the upstair of shop building fell on the ground floor roof and the ground floor roof fell on the lubricants stock kept in the shop of the complainant in the ground floor and stock worth Rs.2,70,180/- was wholly damaged and some stock worth Rs.69,275.45 was partially damaged. Hence in our considered view the claim of the appellant is genuine and in those circumstances, he is entitled to the claim amount as prayed for.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is allowed directing the respondent/opposite party to pay Rs.2,70,180/- + Rs.69,275.45 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 02-8-2011 till the date of realization within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/=-MEMBER.
JM Dt.09-7-2014.
