Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/132/2016

K.Sankaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Kiran Rao

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 13.04.2016

Date of Reservation      : 09.06.2022

Date of Order              : 27.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                               : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 132/2016

MONDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

K.Sankaran (72 years),

Old No.12, New No.8,

3^rd Street, Bakthavatsalam Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

                                                                                                                                                                              ... Complainant        

..Vs..

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance,

Company Limited,

Rep. by its Chairman

No.21,Patullos Road,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                                                                ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. K.P. Kiran Rao

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M.B. Gopalan Associates

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,700/-being the claim amount towards replacement of mosaic floor tiles and skirting tiles under policy bearing No.FM00020206000101 covering house building together with interest @12%p.a from 15.02.2015 till date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.39,900/- towards cost to the damaged furniture, contents and appliances under Home Insurance Policy dated 14.01.2015 bearing No.DO00003783000110 covering House hold contents and house hold appliances together with interest @12% p.a from 15.02.2015 till date of payment and pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the Complainant along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant was subscribing to the Home Insurance Policy of the opposite party from the year 2003. He had renewed the Home Insurance policy for the period from 13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016 and paid premium of a sum of Rs. 1,341/-, the opposite party had issued Home Insurance Policy dated 14.01.2015 bearing No.DO00003783000110 covering House hold contents and house hold appliances, Jewellery with add on contents for the said period, the sum insured was Rs. 3,00,000/-.He was also subscribing to the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period from 13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016 and paid premium of Rs.1348/-, the opposite party had issued policy bearing No. FM00020206000101 covering house building, the sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/-. The above two policies were issued by the opposite party for the past several years. No claim was made earlier. There was cyclonic weather and torrential rains in Chennai from the last week of November, 2015, resulting in flooding and inundation in Adyar including the house of the complainant. During the period 01.12.2015 to 06.12.2015 there was flooding and inundation of his house resulting in heavy damage and loss to property and materials, Stagnant/foul and corrosive water remained in the complainant's house over said six days and consequent to rise in level of water inside, the third bedroom also was inundated. The water had receded only on 06.12.2015 except in both the bathrooms which remained unserviceable. He, his wife, daughter and son were displaced from the house from afternoon of 01.12.2015 till addressing the letter dated 06.12.2015 resulting in loss of normal comfort and had to incur expenses for food, shelter, beddings apart from fear and mental agony.The damage and loss suffered by him were the mosaic flooring of the entire house excluding the third bedroom suffered extensively. In many places the mosaic flooring had developed small to medium size visible pits due to impact of continuous stagnation of corrosive water. At his request, a consulting Engineer, inspected the building and opined that the inundation for the continuous period of more than two days will result in such damage owing to corrosive and foul water. Household contents and appliances in the insured premises were damaged, of which Sofa Set consisting of three pieces, the lower portion of the same was immersed in the food/foul water up to 4 to 5 inches and the same will have to be replaced, the cost of replacement after deducting the resalable value of Sofa, was assessed at Rs.25,000/- the wooden rack had to be condemned and replaced, the cost of replacement is valued at Rs. 10,000/-, Wooden divan damaged replacement cost assessed at Rs. 3,000/-, Side table cum telephone stand-cost assessed Rs.2,500/-, Eight legs of double cot to be repaired-cost assessed at Rs.2,000/-, Damage to clothes-dry clean charges- Rs 1,000/-, Damage to refrigerator Cost assessed Rs. 2,000/-, Plug points damaged Cost Rs. 1,000/-, Damage to walls-cost repair and painting Rs. 5,000/-, Damage to side walls of the house and office room cost of repair Rs.2,000/-. The complainant, at the time of addressing the letter dated 06.12.2015 assessed his estimation of loss on account of the damage caused by flood. The Opposite Party's Surveyor  inspected the complainant's house on 10.12.2015 and also took photographs. He submitted his claim form to the Opposite Party on 15.12.2015 for Rs.2,80,750/- along with the claim form two estimates dated 13.12.2015 given by Murugan services, one for repair of house hold contents for Rs.39,750/- and another for relaying the mosaic tiles and additional carpentry work for Rs.1,81,700/- were enclosed, the Opposite Party vide their letter dated 04.01.2016, admitted complainant's claim for Rs.10,725/- referring to policy for house hold contents and called upon the complainant to sign and send discharge voucher in full and final settlement. He was shocked and put to great mental anguish as the Opposite Party did not even notice the claim under special perils policy and did not even refer in their letter dated 04.01.2016, he expressed his dissatisfaction over non consideration of the claim under special perils policy and called upon the opposite party to re-examine his genuine claim as per the policy terms and conditions. On 11.01.2016 the Opposite Party sent their revised settlement for Rs.61,850/- and offered to pay a sum of Rs.21,950/- in respect of claim for the contents as against the claim of Rs.46,500/- and a sum of Rs.39,900/- only as against the claim of Rs.2,34,250/- in respect of policy covering building. The surveyor's note ought to have been disclosed to the complainant and an opportunity to explain the contents of the note was not afforded to the complaint, which further aggravated his mental agony to a great extent. The Opposite Party failed to perform the terms of insurance contract and this constitutes deficiency in service under section 2 (g) of the Act. Vide letter dated 18.02.2016 he called upon the Opposite Party to depute their representative to examine the flooring to appreciate his genuine claim within 10 days thereof failing which he will commence relaying of mosaic tiles and skirting and also called upon them to remit the admitted claim amount without insisting on full and final discharge voucher. But, the Opposite Party had failed and neglected to settle his genuine claim. In respect of the claim for cost of replacement of damaged mosaic flooring and skirting in the two bed rooms, hall and dining, for an area measuring around 950 sq. ft., amounts to Rs.1,81,700/-, the opposite party had allowed only a sum of Rs.31,500/- towards cleaning charges stating that flood and inundation will not cause damage to the flooring and it is only dirt and mud requiring cleaning. The opposite party failed to take into account that inundation was for six days. The opposite party allowed cleaning and polishing expenses at Rs.35 per sq ft. At his request, his consulting Engineer, Mr. P.T. Shanmugam, had inspected the house on 17.12.2015 to assess the damage if any caused by recent floods to the flooring only. The engineer has given a report dated 18.12.2015 and advised to replace flooring with new tiles with an estimation of Rs.85,500/-, being cost of laying tiles for 950 sq.ft. tiles @ Rs. 75/- per sq.ft amounts to Rs.67,500/- and Labour charges for dismantling the tiles and laying new tiles @ Rs.20/- sq.ft amounts to Rs. 18,000/- and to treated the report as part and parcel of this complaint. The Opposite Party is liable to reimburse the cost of replacement of the mosaic tiles as the same has been damaged beyond repair on account of the insured peril, the said claim squarely falls under the policies. He had been subscribing to the opposite party's insurance policies for the past several years and there has been accumulated bonus also. In fact the policies were renewed for another year, the opposite party's act of admitting only a sum of Rs.61.850/- as against the claim of Rs.2,80,750/- and failure on the part of opposite party to pay the admitted claim amount of Rs.61,850/- on the mere ground of full and final discharge voucher not being given in spite of providing all the necessary documents and explanations and repeated reminders, has caused great mental agony and suffering to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to compensate him for the same, which though cannot be measured in terms of money, the complainant moderately estimates the same at Rs.1,00,000/-. The Opposite Party realized that withholding the amount of Rs.61850/- is incorrect only after pointing out repeatedly that it is unjust, unfair and illegal. The opposite party sent letter dated 25.02.2016 which stated that cheque for Rs.61,850/- will be forwarded. The insistence for submitting a discharge voucher in full and final settlement is an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sec.2(r) of the Act and the arm twisting measure adopted by the opposite party caused immense pain and suffering to the complainant. The opposite party adopted an unfair method of providing for the service agreed under the two policies. He acknowledged the receipt of two cheques bearing No.515564 for Rs.21,950.00 and No 515565 for Rs.39,900/- by means of letter dated 02.03.2016 and objected to the finding recorded in the letter dated 25.02.2016 that the flood water will not cause damage to the mosaic flooring. The complainant has received the said payment under protest. Under the circumstances vide letter dated 02.03.2016, advised the opposite party that the work for relaying the tiles and skirting will commence shortly at the cost of the company. The house was not habitable under such bad condition. The opposite party sent an untenable reply dated 18.03.2016 reiterating their earlier stand. Restricting settlement at Rs.10,000/- for cost of repair of shoe rack mounting to Rs. 18,900/-on the ground maximum replacement of any one item is quantified overlooks that the policy of insurance must confirm to the proposal form submitted by him. He insured household contents for Rs. 3,00,000/- and splitting up item wise limit for insurance is a deceptive trade practice adopted by the opposite party. He indicated in the proposal that insurance is on market value basis, in S.No. 20 of proposal form. When the overall liability for household contents is Rs. 3,00,000/- the opposite party ought to have before accepting the premium disclosed the item wise limit for insurance. The opposite party deceived him. The opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8,900/- under this head non settlement of the damage to the house building in full is unjust, unfair and contrary to the terms of policy. The total amount claimed is Rs. 2,34,250/- under this head. The quotation given by Murugan services for relaying of mosaic tiles and carpentry work for altering all the doors 6 in number is Rs.1,81,700/-. The opposite party had allowed only a sum of Rs. 31,500/- towards cleaning charges stating that flood and inundation will not cause damage to the flooring and it is only dirt and mud wiring cleaning. The opposite party is liable to settle the said amount of Rs.1,81,700/- towards cost of replacement of Mosaic tiles under the policy covering the house. The complainant submits that the unilateral observation of the opposite party that flood water will not cause damage overlooks the engineer's report dated 18.12.2015. It is not mere dirt and requiring cleaning and polishing, the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq.ft, is highly disproportionate to the cost of replacement of mosaic tiles and polishing. In fact cleaning is separately covered under the policy. As stated already the photos taken by the surveyor, if produced by the opposite party will expose the perverse decision of the opposite party.

3.Version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is completely misconceived and without any basis. The Opposite Party has considered the claim of the Complainant for damage to household and contents and offered reasonable cost of repairs. The claim is exaggerated. Instead of accepting the reasonable offer, the Complainant has chosen to file the present complaint which is nothing but abuse of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant was holding Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy covering the Building of his residence at No.8, Third Street, Bakthavatsalam Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. The Complainant had another Home Shield Policy covering Contents of the premises as per terms and conditions of the Policy. The Opposite Party submits that the Policies represented contract of insurance and must be strictly construed for deciding admissibility on extent of claim if any made. The Complainant reported a claim for damage to the Building mainly Flooring the premises and for some of the contents during Flood on 01.12.2015 to  06.12.2015. The Opposite Party had appointed Surveyor to assess the damage. After verification by the Surveyor, based on his assessment, initially Rs. 10,725/- was offered settlement by letter dated 04.01.2016 giving details of working. The Complaint disputed the amount offered by letter dated 01.01.2016. In response to the same the Opposite Party had reviewed the amount offered and revised their assessment Rs.61,850/- as under which was communicated by letter dated 11.01.2016 Contents Rs.21,950/-,Building Rs.39,900/-. In working out the above settlement, in respect of the claim for replacement of Floor, there was no damage the Mosaic Flooring of such nature as to require a complete replacement, the Complainant is attempting to exaggerate the alleged damage due to Flood. Upon receding of the Flood Waters, the Flooring would only require cleaning and the Flood was not such a peril as to completely damage the Flooring or render it unusable. The Complainant cannot take advantage of the Flood to claim replacement of the Flooring. Nevertheless, the Opposite Party had taken a considered view of practical hardships and accommodated the Complainant by allowing Rs.35/- per sq.ft towards cost of cleaning and polishing the floor. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.61,850/- was offered towards claim for damage to Flooring which is reasonable indemnity, in respect of other items of Building such as Doors, the Opposite Party allowed the entire amount as claimed, in respect of damage to the furniture such as Shoe Rack, Bed etc. the Opposite Party has allowed the entire amount as claimed. However, in respect of Shoe Rack, the amount is limited to Rs.10,000/- which is the maximum amount per item as per the Policy, the Policy Excess of Rs.500/- had to be deducted.

        Hence, by no stretch of imagination can the Opposite Party be accused of deficiency in service, while the initial offer was based on Surveyor's assessment the Opposite Party had immediately and fairly responded when the inadequacy of the amount offered was pointed out by the Complainant. In such circumstances the complaint as against this Opposite Party is misconceived and the complaint totally lacks merit. The allegations of "corrosive water" etc. were exaggeration and misleading, made to justify an excessive claim. The various items of damage and extent are specifically disputed and denied, in particular, it is denied that the Mosaic tiles could not be brought back to the original shape or that it required replacement and the assessment of different items which have no basis. Moreover, for old furniture, suitable depreciation must be applied and the Complainant's estimations are devoid of such legal assessment. The Claim Form had no correlation with the Estimates. The Opposite Party has reasonably considered the items estimated and allowed fair assessment, including fully estimated amount for several items. Hence the Complainant's claim is without basis. Although the Opposite Party initially offered Rs. 10,725/-, they have subsequently revised their offer to Rs.61,850/- which represents reasonable estimate of the loss that is payable under the Policy. The disclosure of Survey Report etc. are all unnecessary. The Opposite Party did not deny information. The Report of Complainant's Engineer cannot be accepted as a valid assessment of loss under the Policy. Such Reports cannot be the basis to consider admissibility of claim under the Policy or to determine amount payable by the Opposite Party. It is denied that any pitting was caused by Flood or that it required replacement of tiles. Such pitting, change of colour etc, occurs by long usage and in the pretext of the flood, the Complainant cannot use the flood as an excuse to claim for replacement of floor under the Policy. Liability for the sum of Rs.1,81,700/- or any amount towards replacement of the tiles, was denied. For having taken the Policy for several years, the Complainant cannot demand payment of amounts which are otherwise inadmissible. Mental agony, suffering etc. were denied. All requests, enquiries and representations of the Complainant were entertained and substantially revised the assessment by due application of mind. The Complainant has failed to appreciate their sincere efforts and appears intent to misuse the Consumer Protection Act. They had released the payment for amount offered by way of settlement. They had not withheld payment. The request for discharge voucher cannot be portrayed as "arm twisting" which only reveals that the Complainant is resorting to vexatious complaint. They reiterates that the condition of the mosaic tiles including pitting etc. cannot happen within a short duration due to entry of flood water. Hence their disallowance of the cost of replacement of tiles is fully justified. The claim for sofa was exaggerated and without basis. The various items mentioned were not part of the claim, Opposite Party was not liable to pay the items mentioned. The restriction per item was stipulated in the Policy as part of the contract of insurance. It was shocking that the Complainant had accepted the Policy and now claims higher amount by making false allegations of being "deceived". Such allegations were legally and  factually unsustainable and only indicates the frivolous nature of the complaint. There is no cause of action for the complaint on the nature of disputes raised by the Complainant, even if assumed to have any substance, the decision would require elaborate technical evidence and cannot be summarily decided in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. It would be a matter for decision by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the complaint itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. They are not liable for the various amounts claimed which were without basis, exaggerated or not payable by this Opposite Party. The reliefs sought are not sustainable but an attempt to misuse the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.

The Complainant had filed his Proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant documents Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked. The Opposite Party had filed its Proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party document Ex.B-1 was marked.

4.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and Home Shield Policy of the Opposite Party and the same were in existence from 13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016 which is evidenced from Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3.

It is not in dispute that damage caused to the Complainant’s house and its contents due to flood and inundation, during 01.12.2015 to 06.12.2015.

The dispute arises in respect of the claim settlement, as the amount assessed for the damages caused to his house and it contents was without considering the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy as well as Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6, being the letter dated 06.12.2015 sent by him to the Opposite Party and Flood Loss Claim Form for Rs.2,80,750/- being a sum of Rs.2,34,250/- claimed for damage caused to his house and a sum of Rs.46,500/- claimed for the damages caused to furniture’s, contents and appliances, respectively. Since his house was affected by flood and inundation, resulting in heavy damage and loss to property and materials, Stagnant/foul and corrosive water remained in his house over said six days, he had submitted the claim form for the above said amount of Rs.2,80,750/-. The Complainant further contended that on protest he had received two cheques amounting to for Rs.61,850/- from the Opposite Party and had claimed for interest at 18% per annum for the period of retaining the agreed amount without delivering to him and had also not agreed for the assessment made in respect of Mosaic flooring and had informed that the replacement of mosaic flooring would be done at the cost of Opposite Party as found in Ex.A-14, which was denied by the Opposite party under Ex.A-15. The Complainant in support of his claim had filed Ex.A-5 the quotation dated 10.12.2015 and 13.12.2015, Ex.A-7 his Engineer’s report dated 18.12.2015, Ex.A-8 being photos with CD, Ex.A-16 being the Bill for purchase of tiles and Ex.A-17 being the cost paid for laying of tiles and carpentry works.

The Opposite Party contended that there was no necessity for replacement of floor, there was no damages to the floor mosaic tiles of such nature as to require a complete replacement, change of colour of the mosaic tiles and pitting occurs by long usage and not because of flood and the same could not be used for claiming replacement of floor under the policy, upon receding of the flood water, the flooring would only require cleaning and the flood was not such a peril as to completely damage the flooring or render it unusable. They had fairly assessed at Rs.35/- per sq.ft and the amount claimed to the sum assured by the Complainant is not agreeable. And with regard to the house contents they had paid as per the agreed terms and conditions under the Policy to the complaint and further contended they had revised the assessment at the request of the complainant as found in Ex.A-10 from Rs.10,725/- to Rs.61,850/- as found in Ex.A-11 and the Cheques to the said amount by Ex.A-13 sent and was acknowledged the receipt of the same by the complainant as found in Ex.A-14. Further contended that the claim of the complainant for laying tiles apart from mosaic based on the Quotation as found in Ex.A-5 and the Complainant’s Engineer Report as found in Ex.A-7 cannot acceptable and agreeable and they are ready to pay the agreed sum of Rs.61,850/- with reasonable interest till date. There is no deficiency of service on their part in settling the claim of the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policies.

The Complainant relied upon Judgment reported in 2000 (2) SCC 734 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Insulators Ltd Vs- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, wherein it was held that in absence of communication of the exclusion clause to the insured, the insurer could not claim benefit of that clause, which would not directly apply to the instant case.

Also relied upon Judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 159 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Another Vs- Ozma Shipping Company & Another, wherein it was held that the insurance companies in genuine and bonafide claims of insurance should not adopt attitude of avoiding payment on one pretext or the other. Such attitude puts a serious question mark on the credibility and trustworthiness of the insurance company. Incidentally by adopting on honest approach and attitude the insurance companies would be able to save enormous litigation costs and the interest liability. The tendency of approaching the Apex court in every such case also needs to be effectively curbed, which would apply to the case in hand.

And also relied upon the Order reported in II (2015) CPJ 105 (Jharkhand) passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ranchi) in United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs- Kraft & Another, wherein it was observed that the surveyor report was the basis of Repudiation of claim, is unreliable, if the seepage was from the water body, such seepage could damage the goods, even without rains, the Insurance company is estopped from taking such plea that the floor of the Godown was in bad condition and therefore there might be a chance of seepage from the nearby water body, the Insurance company should have examined these things before entering into the insurance contract and the case of the complainant that damage occurred due to entering of overflowing drain water, during rainy season appears to be supported by the materials on record. And also relied the Judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in II (2009) CPJ 311 (NC), it was considered whether the damage of unfinished umbrella stick due to high density of moisture grown up during the situation of flood, was within the peril of the policy or not, The insurance Company emphasized on the word – “destruction or damage directly used by …… flood or inundation.” The Hon’ble National Commission after considering the definition of “direct cause” and “direct and proximate cause”, held that loss was caused from direct and proximate cause of inundation and the order of the Learned lower forum was modified in respect of date of payment and rate of Interest, which would apply to the case in hand.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as well as the material evidences filed by the Complainant and the Judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 159 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Another Vs- Ozma Shipping Company & Another and Judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in II (2009) CPJ 311 (NC), this commission holds that the replacement of floor affected by Flood and inundation by re-laying of mosaic tiles affected by corrosive water, is necessary, though the Complainant had  laid tiles other than mosaic tiles and replaced the floor, the assessment made initially under Ex.A-9 without considering the Policy Covering House Building bearing Policy No.FM00020206000101 by the Opposite party and the claim settled without considering the damages caused due to Flood was within the peril under the said policy availed by the Complainant, as it has been clearly mentioned in the Earthquake Fire & Shock Clause as found in Ex.A.2 in page no.8of the Complainant’s Typed set, as “ In consideration of the payment of additional by the Insured to the Company, it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything stated in the printed exclusions of this policy to the contrary, this insurance is extended to cover loss or damage (including loss or damage by fire) to any of the property insured by this policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of earthquake including flood or overflow of the sea, lakes, reservoirs and rivers and/or Landslide/Rockslide resulting there from” and the Complainant had availed insurance on Earthquake as add on clause and paid a sum of Rs.200/- as premium which is found in Ex.A-2 in Page No.7 of the Complainant’s Typed set, and hence the act of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3 :-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,81,700/- towards claim made to the Opposite Party for replacement of mosaic floor tiles and skirting tiles under the policy availed, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint ie., from 13.04.2016  till the date of the order and entitled for a sum of Rs.39,900/- towards repair cost of damaged furniture, contents and appliances under Policy bearing No. DO0000378000110, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint ie., from 13.04.2016 to till the date of the order entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant and also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the Proceedings. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Only) towards claim made by the Complainant for replacement of mosaic floor tiles and skirting tiles under the policy availed, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint ie., from 13.04.2016 till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.39,900/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Only) towards repair cost of damaged furniture, contents and appliances under Policy bearing No. DO0000378000110, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint ie., from 13.04.2016 till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the Proceedings to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of this Order, failing which the Complainant shall recover from the Opposite Party the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^th of June 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	12.01.2005	Proposal Form
Ex.A2	13.01.2015 to   12.01.2016	Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy Schedule of Insurance with Terms & Conditions
Ex.A3	13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016	Policy Schedule of Insurance Policy No D000003783000110 with Terms & Conditions
Ex.A4	06.12.2015	Complainant's letter to Opposite party
Ex.A5	10.12.2015 -13.12.2015	Quotation given by Murugan Services
Ex.A6	15.12.2015	Claim Form
Ex.A7	18.12.2015	Inspection Report by Engineer, Mr. P.T. Shanmugam
Ex.A8	Dec, 2015	Photos with CD
Ex.A9	04.01.2016	Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant.
Ex.A10	06.01.2016	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.A11	11.01.2016	Reply from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A12	18.02.2016	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A13	25.02.2016	Reply from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.A14	02.03.2016	Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A15	18.03.2016	Reply from Opposite Party to Complainant

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

11.01.2016

Letter from the Opposite Party giving a detailed break up for settled amount.

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT