BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 8th day of February, 2012
C.C.No.82/2011
Between:
K.Narayana Setty, S/o.K.Nagaiah Setty,
Proprietor of M/s.Kuppa Fancy Stores,Shop No.13, S.R.S. Mutt Building,Mantralayam Post & Mandal - 518 345,Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s.New India Assurance Company Limited,Represented by its Branch Manager,
D.No.19/19, 20/21, Muncipal Main Road, Adoni Post - 518 301, Kurnool District.
2. State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Mantralayam Temple prsemise,
D.No.3-159, Mantralayam - 518 345, Kurnool District.
....Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri D.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for complainant and Sri Mohammad Ishaq, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri M.Parameshappa, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No. 82/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 Praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To pay assured amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest;
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as the complainant suffered lot of mental agony for the last five months;
- To pay costs of the complaint;
And
- To grant any relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the proprietor of M/S Kuppa Fancy Store situated in Mantralayam Village. The complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 in the year, 2008. Opposite party No.2 paid insurance premium to opposite party No.1 for the coverage of shop keeper risks for Rs.6,00,000/-. Opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.610702/48/08/34/00000181 covering from 20-11-2008 to 19-11-2009. In the floods took place from 30-09-2009 to 03-10-2009 the shop of the complainant was totally damaged and the complainant sustained total loss. The complainant informed about the same to the opposite parties. The insurance surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1. The surveyor visited the shop and inspected the stocks and obtained all the relevant documents. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested to settle the claim. Finally the opposite party No.1 settled the claim for Rs.20,000/- only without any justification. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting that the shop of the complainant was insured by it for the period commencing from 20-11-2008 to 19-11-2009. Due to heavy rains and floods, Mantralayam was inundated from 30-09-2009 to 02-10-2009, and the shop of the complainant was partially damaged. He sustained total loss of Rs.4,00,000/- is baseless. The surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1 and the said surveyor inspected the shop and submitted his report assessing net loss of Rs.20,000/- after deducting the salvage amount and policy excess as per terms and conditions of the policy. Opposite party No.1 sent several reminders to the complainant to collect the said amount, but the complainant did not respond. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the bank sanctioned loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation for Rs.3,50,000/-. On 20-11-2008 opposite party No.2 debited a sum of Rs.3,239/- in personal account of the complainant towards insurance premium amount. It is the duty of opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- It is admitted that the shop of the complainant is situated at Mantralayam Village. It is also admitted that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from opposite party No.2 bank. Opposite party No.1 insurance company issued (Ex.A1 and Ex.B10) insurance policy bearing No.610702/48/08/34/00000181 in favour of the complainant for coverage of shop keeper for the year 2008 – 2009. The period of the policy is from 20-11-2008 to 19-11-2009. It is also admitted that the risk is covered within the period of insurance policy. It is the case of the complainant that there were floods from 30-09-2009 to 03-10-2009, he purchased new stock worth Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was damaged in the floods, but opposite party No.1settled the claim for Rs.20,000/- only. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that it appointed surveyor to assess the loss occurred in the floods. The said surveyor visited the shop and inspected the stock. The report of surveyor is marked as Ex.B3. The said surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.20,000/- after deducting the salvage amount and excess policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. Opposite party No.1 sent several reminders to the complainant to collect the said amount but he did not respond. The complainant did not produce any evidence on record to show that he has suffered loss of stock about Rs.4,00,000/-. The report of the surveyor must be given due to weight. No ambiguity is found in the report of the surveyor. The opposite party No.1 sent several letters under Ex.B4, Ex.B5, Ex.B7 and Ex.B11 to collect the said amount, but the complainant did not choose to collect it. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited a decision of Apex Court in Madan Kumar Singh – Vs – District Magistrate where in 6% interest was awarded. But the facts of the above case are different from this case.
8. Opposite party No.2 is the bank. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 that Ex.B10 policy was issued by opposite party No.1 insurance company. The stock in the shop of the complainant was damaged due to floods on 02-10-2009 when the policy was in force. The opposite party No.1 did not pay any amount to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
9. Admittedly the stock in the shop of the complainant was insured by opposite party No.1 insurance company under Ex.B10 for Rs.6,00,000/-. The Surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.20,000/-. In view of the evidence available on record we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/-.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order along with cost of Rs.500/-. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 8th day of February, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing
No.610702/48/08/34/00000181.
Ex.A2. Letter dated 28-01-2010 by complainant to
opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3 Letter dated 23-08-2010 by opposite party No.1 to
complainant.
Ex.A4 Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant
dated 22-09-2010.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Tahsildar,
Mantralayam dated 20.10.2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Letter dated 09-10-2009 by complainant to
opposite party No.1.
Ex.B2 Fire Claim Form dated 09-10-2009.
Ex.B3 Survey Report of Sri.Hosur Vijaya Kumar, Insurance
Surveyor dated 28-01-2010 along with photos.
Ex.B4 Letter dated 12-03-2010 by opposite party No.1 to
complainant.
Ex.B5 Office copy of letter dated 28-06-2010 by
opposite party No.1 to complainant.
Ex.B6 Returned Postal Cover.
Ex.B7 Office copy of letter dated 23-08-2010 by
opposite party No.1 to complainant.
Ex.B8 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.B9 Postal Receipt No.RLADA 1659 for Rs.25/-
dated 27-09-2010.
Ex.B10 Policy bearing No.610702/48/08/34/00000181.
Ex.B11 Office copy of letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 22-09-2010.
Ex.B12 Photo copy of agreement of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation
dated 06-11-2008.
Ex.B13 Photo copy of Guarantee Agreement
dated 06-11-2008.
Ex.B14 Photo copy of Arrangement letter dated 06-11-2008.
Ex.B15 Statement of Account No.30558390150 of the complainant
dated 10-09-2011.
Ex.B16 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Mantralayam
dated 17.06.2010.
Ex.B17 Office copy of Letter dated 18-04-2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
