This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. Tulluru Ramesh Babu, Advocate for complainant; and of                           Smt. P. Sandhya Rani, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is a partnership firm dealing the business of Fertilizers and Pesticides at H.No.3-1-128/4/1, BNR Complex, Mohan Road, Khammam and the Complainant No.2 is managing partner of the said firm doing such business for the last 15 years. The complainants have taken a Fire and Special Peril Insurance policy No.431401/11/2008/308  from the Opposite Party for the period from 19-01-2008 to 18-01-2009 covering the risks of stocks to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-.The agriculture department regulated the supply and sales by allotting the Fertilizers to  A.P. Mark fed and Mana Gromore center due to the shortage. On 03-10-2008 nearly four thousand formers from various mandals of Khammam Districts thinking that the complaints premises as Mono Gromore center godown and broken shutters of the godown of the Complainants and taken away the stocks forcibly in spite of resistance of the employees of the complainant firm. The stocks were damaged due to which the total loss of Rs.11,08,310/- was caused to the complaint’s firm as per its records and invoices. On report of the complainant the police III town registered a case with crime No.119/2008, and after due investigation the stocks to the tune of Rs.31,553/- was recovered and rest of the stock did not recovered thus there was net loss of Rs.10,96,757/- to the Complainants. As the stocks were missed the complainant made a report with the opposite party as to the opposite Party to make a good to losses incurred by the complainant but the Opposite Party has repudiated the said claim under  Exclusion Clause on 10-11-2009.  Further the complainant contended that the exclusion clause is not applicable for the present case and the unilateral repudiation on the part of Opposite Party is deplorable. Hence, the complaint filed seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.10,96,757/- with interest towards loss caused to the complainants.

3.      In support of the complainant’s contention, they have filed the following documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4. i.e.

4.      The complainants are also filed the order copy of CC.No.22 of 2010 of Hon’ble A.P state Commission and  the decision of the Tariff Advisory Committee FT/5/2002 dated  June 25,2002 approved by IRDA and the citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009-Laws (SC)-9-2, New India Assurance Company Ltd v/s Zuari Industries Ltd.

5.      On receipt of the notice the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter and contended that the allegations made by the complainant was losing of Rs.11,08,310/- is false. The Opposite Party Issued insurance policy No.431401/11/2008/308 for a period from19-01-2008 to 18-01-2009 to the complainant firm to cover the stocks worth of Rs.25,00.000/- held at H.No:3-1-128/4 and 3-1-128/4/4, 3-9-9/A . The opposite party was not issued any policy covering the stocks at Door.No.3-1-128/4/1 as mentioned in the complaint. Hence the Opposite Party Company is not liable to pay the said compensation. The opposite Party further stated that the documents collected by the surveyor and basing on investigation report the complainants have misrepresented the facts. The said Policy will not come within the purview, as the standard Fire and Special peril policy conditions clause V (b) excludes the loss of insured stocks for riot, strike and malicious damage, burglary house braking theft larceny or any such attempt or any omission any kind of any person (whether or not such act is committed in the course of a disturbance of public peace) in any malicious Act, in such circumstances the Opposite Party  Company repudiated the claim of the compliant through a letter 10-11-2009.  As such the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6.      In support of their contentions the opposite party filed the following documents, which are marked as Ex.B-1to B-3 i.e.,

7.      The Opposite Party filed petition vide I.A.No.108/2013 to receive the documents and the same is allowed and are marked as Exhibits B-4 to B-6, i.e.

8.      Both parties filed written arguments.

9.      Upon perusing the material papers available on record and written arguments, now the points that arose for consideration are,

i) Whether the complaints are entitled for the claim from the Opposite Party?.

ii)Whether the complainants are suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,96,757/-?

iii)To What Relief?

Point No. i) and ii):-      

          The business sales of Pesticides and Fertilizers of the complainants are not disputed and their standard fire and special peril insurance policy for the period from 19-01-2008 to 18-01-2009 is not disputed but the opposite party disputed with the premises of the insured stock. As per the complainants, they are dealing the business of Fertilizers and Pesticides at H.No.3-1-128/4/1, BNR Complex, Mohan Road, Khammam  and got insured the stocks for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- but as per the policy bond the stocks were insured in the premises and the said policy No.431401/11/2008/308  is held at door No.3-1-128/4, 3-1-128/4 and 3-9-9/A, all the three premises are located in  Mohan Road, BNR Complex, Khammam.

The  opposite party have appointed the Integral  Assessors, surveyors and valuers Hyderabad  and they have got investigated on 07-10-2008 and gave a report that Ushasri pesticides and Fertilizers is sister concerned of Ushasri  Enterprises having the only godown in use at 3-2-128/4 this portion is abutting to their office room 3-1-128/4/1 in the BNR Complex, Mohan Road Khammam-507003.  Further stated that the godowns at 3-1-128/4/4, BNR Complex and 3-9-9/A Mohan Road Khammam were in disuse for long time since the complainants has ceased storing their stocks at 3-9-9/A Mohan Road and 3-1-128/4/4 a portion of the BNR complex Mohan Road  and were having their stocks only at 3-1-128/4, BNR complex, Mohan Road, Khammam and upon verification of the stock  at 3-1-128/4 BNR complex Mohan Road  the insured had only 14 items, assessed the value of stocks as Rs.5,22,170/- and  after net loss on stocks are worth of Rs.4,85,533/-.The complainants are  sharing the office space in 3-1-128/4/1 with its sister concerned Ushasri Enterprises, BNR Complex, Mohan Road Khammam and in the complaint the complainants stated that they are dealing the fertilizers and pesticides business and  did not mentioned that they are using it as godown. The surveyor report reveals that the D.No.3-1-128/4/1 is office and 3-1-128/4 is godown of the complainants.  Since the complainants are using the D.No.3-1-128/4 as the godown and as the office in D.No.3-1-128/4/1. Thus there is no ambiguity about the insured premises and the insured stocks were located in the godown No.3-1-128/4 i.e. in the insured premises which were looted by the mob which are estimated by the opposite party appointed surveyor to the tune of Rs. Rs.4,85,533/-.  With regard to the standard Fire and Special peril policy conditions clause V (b) i.e. excludes the loss of insured stocks for riot, strike and malicious damage, burglary house braking theft larceny or any such attempt or any omission any kind of any person (whether or not such act is committed in the course of a disturbance of public peace) in any malicious Act, the complainants contended that it is not applicable in this instance, as per the judgment of CC.No.22 of 2010  M/s Ushasri  Enterprises and ors v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  The Hon’ble A.P state Commission has decided that the compensation may be given basing on the surveyor report in case of Riots, This case is the sister concerned of the complainants and stocks were looted in the same crime. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party surveyor estimated the loss of goods and opposite party insurance is being covered for the stocks of the complainants. The exclusion clause (V)  of the policy condition is not applicable at this instance, hence the Opposite Party have to pay the Rs.4,85,533/- towards the compensation The point No.1 is answered accordingly against the Opposite Party

• No.iii):-In the above stated circumstances the Opposite Party is to pay the Rs.4,85,533/- to the complainants with the interest @ 9% per annum.

10.    In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.4,85,533/- under the Policy bearing No. 431401/11/2008/308 to the complainants together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 23-01-2010 till the date of realization within a month. Further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 15^th day of September, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       -None-                                                                   - None -                                                        

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.