Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/150/2015

Syed Majeed, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Babu Rangasamy Asso.,

12 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing: 26.8.2015

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                               BEFORE       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH         PRESIDENT

                                                       Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                MEMBER

 

CC.NO.150/2015

 DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF  OCTOBER 2022

Syed Majeed

S/o. Jalal

V-32, Sreevatsa Global Village

Chinnavedampatty

Coimbatore – 641 049                                                            ....Complainant

                                                  Vs 

 

M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

4A, 4^th Floor, Thirumalai Towers  

723, Avinashi Road, Puliakulam

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 018                                  ....Opposite party

 

Counsel for complainant                              :   M/s  Babu Rangaswamy Associates

Counsel for opposite party                           :   M/s. M.B.Gopalan Associates

 

                This complaint coming before us for hearing finally today and on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on bothsides and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT     (Open court)

1.       This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.5,16,700/- towards the amount spent for the completed repair works, to pay Rs.2 lakhs for relaying the damaged wooden flooring, Rs.14,00,000/- towards deficiency in service alongwith cost.

2.       The averments in the complaint reads as follows:

           The complainant entered into a Home Insurance Policy by name “Secure Home”, with the opposite party, through the agent M/s. Citi Bank N.A, for his house situated at V-32 “Sreevatsa Global Village”, Coimbatore.  The Policy No. is FM CIT10007.  The house is insured for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the damages under “Fire and Allied Perils”, and the premium paid is Rs.33,708/- inclusive of service tax.  The policy period is for 10 years commencing from 18.2.2013 and valid till 17.2.2023.  On 14.4.2014, when the complainant was away from home, due to technical fault in the health faucet tap in the first floor bathroom of his house, water has over flown, which resulted in flooding and thereby the wooden flooring of the house, wooden staircase and other wood works, solar system control panel and the wall paints were damaged.  Hence the complainant raised complaint to the opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,37,500/- claiming insurance for the damages suffered on account of the accidental over flowing of water on 14.4.2014.  The opposite party assessed the damages through its authorized surveyor M/s. Rank Surveyors Pvt., Ltd., and the assessor by their letter dt.23.6.2014 informed the complainant, stating that as per “S.No.IX of policy that the peril covered is applicable for bursting /or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus and pipes, and in your case there is no bursting of apparatus/ tap and hence the damage to the properties is not due to anyone of the perils covered under the fire policy issued”, therefore the claim is not advisable, but the said observation of the surveyor is erroneous since S.No.IX also refers to bursting or overflowing of water from apparatus and pipes. Therefore, the complainant replied to the surveyor by his letter dt.27.6.2014 clarifying that he is entitled for insurance cover as per clause IX of the “Secure Home” policy.  However the surveyors refused to revive their stand. Meanwhile the opposite party sent an e-mail dt.3.11.2014 expressing their intention to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.170400/- only, which is not in proportion to the damages sustained by the complainant.  The complainant dejectedly agreed to receive the compensation and submitted a discharge voucher dt.28.11.2014 with a protest clause.  The opposite party had sent a letter dt.11.12.2014 stating that the claim was assessed as per the policy terms and conditions, and the complainant had purchased the building for Rs.1,32,30,296/- and insured the same only for Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore the building itself is under-insured. The opposite party had not chosen to raise the point ‘under-insured, at the time of processing itself, and raising at the later stage clearly indicates the intention of the opposite party to repudiate the genuine claim.  The value of the property is irrelevant in this context because the complainant’s claim pursuant to the damage falls well with the insured value and is covered as per policy clause.  The complainant had sent reply dt.9.1.2015 to the opposite party stating that the insurance was taken only after completion of all the interior works and occupation of the house.  For which the opposite party again replied on 14.1.2015 stating that they would like to inform the complainant that the claim was assessed as per policy terms and conditions and if they did not receive the discharge voucher, they shall be constrained to close the claim as no claim.  Hence alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the present complaint, praying for the relief as stated supra. 

 

3.       The claim of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party by filing version stating as follows:

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The complainant’s claim has been reasonably assessed and settlement offered within the terms of the policy.  The surveyor has concluded that there was damage essentially to interior works such as wooden flooring due to the overflowing of water from the bathroom, besides damage to the painting on the walls etc.  Thus the damage was mainly to interiors which do not form part of the ‘building’ under the policy, but would form part of ‘contents’ if insured.  But the complainant having chosen not to insure the contents, damage to such items were not covered under the policy.  The surveyor had concluded that the damage was due to defective tap resulting in overflowing of water, which risk was not covered under the policy.  However, without prejudice the damage was assessed at Rs.170400/- in respect of building damage alone.  Since the value of property insured was for Rs.50,00,000/-, by applying average the net loss was assessed at Rs.78384/- without admitting the liability.   The opposite party had therefore rightly restricted their assessment and offer of settlement to repairs for the building alone.  Hence the complainant cannot legally claim for interior works under the policy.  Since the complainant refuse to give any form of voucher/ receipt for the payment offered, the opposite party was forced to retain the offered amount.  Hence the complainant cannot blame the opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.       In support of their contentions, the parties have filed their respective proof affidavits alongwith documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite party. 

 

5.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully perused the documents filed in support of their contentions. 

 

6.       As per the policy under Ex.A1, the value of the property insured was Rs.50,00,000/- only, though the value of the property was Rs.1,11,45,600/-.  As per Ex.A1 under the clause Benefits it has been mentioned as “ In consideration of the Insured named I the Schedule hereto having paid to the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, the full premium mentioned in the said schedule, the company agrees (subject to the conditions and exclusions contained herein or endorsed otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the Property insured described in the said schedule or any part of such property be destroyed or damaged by any of the perils specified hereunder during the period of insurance named in the said schedule or of any subsequent period in respect of which the insured shall have paid and the company shall have accepted the premium required for the renewal of the policy, the company shall pay to the insured the value of the property at the time of the happenings of its destruction or the amount of such damage or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof”. 

          In view of the above clause, it is clear that the company is liable to compensate the insured for the value of the property, and not for the removable fixtures such as wooden flooring, staircase etc.  Since he has not chosen to insure the same.   Though the complainant had contended that at the time of availing the policy, the value of the property was Rs.1,11,45,600/- and the value of interior works such as wooden flooring etc., was Rs.3500000/-, the complainant had chosen to insure the property only for Rs.50,00,000/-.  Thus by underinsuring the property, the complainant has paid a sum of @ Rs.30000/- as premium toward the insurance of home building, which is evident from Ex.A1. 

          In view of the above since the removable fixtures such as wooden flooring, staircase etc., were not insured, the damage for building alone was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.170400/- in which we do not find any infirmity.  Admittedly the damage was assessed and offered at Rs.170400/- we are of the considered opinion that the value assessed may be ordered to be given to the complainant.  The complainant is allowed to that extent. 

 

7.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part by directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,400/- alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realisation.  There is no order as to cost. Time for compliance two months, from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                 R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

 

A1      16.02.2013    Home Secure Insurance Policy

A2                         Policy conditions

A3      21.04.2014    Letter by complainant to surveyor

A4      12.05.2014    Quotation by interiors

A5      23.06.2014    Letter from surveyor to complainant

A6      10.07.2014    Reply from surveyor to complainant

A7      15.06.2014    Invoice from interiors

A8                         Correspondences between the complainant and opposite party

A9      16.02.2015    Discharge voucher by OP

 

 

Exhibits filed on the side of Opposite party:   

B1                         Insurance policy with terms and conditions

B2      18.02.2013    Enrolment form

B3      10.05.2014    Certificate of Sreevats         Real Estates

B4      09.01.2015    Mail from complainant to OP

 

 

  R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                  R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT