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
Monday the 30th day of April, 2012
C.C.No.76/2011
Between:
N.Neelima, D/o.Chinna Bajari,
D.No.40/221-A,Bangarupet,Kurnool - 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Divisional Manager,
44-36 B, Mourya Inn Complex, Kurnool - 518 001.
…OPPOSITE PARTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member) C.C. No. 76/2011
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party for the payment of :-
- Rs.60,000/- being assured amount towards loss of stock, and Rs.16,000/- towards damage of furniture and fixtures with interest 24% per annum ;
- Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony
- Cost of the complaint.
2. Briefly the complainant was owner of a small ladies corner shop at Door No.40/221 – A, obtained loan from Canara Bank, Kurnool under Rajiv Yuva Shakthi and insured the furniture fixture fittings and stock in trade for Rs.50,000/- and for Rs.2,000/- on money in transit under shopkeepers insurance policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/0000069, for the period from 07-05-2009 to 06-05-2010. She spent Rs.16,000/- for furniture and fixtures. She purchased stock worth of Rs.50,000/- on 27-04-2009 and Rs.29,600/- on 19-09-2009 from M/s Swathy Silk House, Kurnool. The shop was inundated on 2/3-10-2009 in the devastating floods of Hundry and Thungabhadra Rivers. Till the date of floods she sold goods worth of Rs.19,600/-. The value of stock in trade on the date of floods was 76,000/-. The shop was under flood effect for one week. The entire stock, furniture, bills etc were damaged completely. Municipal authorities of Kurnool to prevent the epidemic directed the complaint to remove the debris. Accordingly the garbage was removed with the help of machines. The entire loss was intimated to opposite party and a reminder was also sent to him through the bank on 23-03-2010. In reply the opposite party on 25-03-2010 repudiated my claim intimating that the address in the policy differs from that of stock damage. Unhappy with the verdict of opposite party, this case is filed by the complainant before this Forum seeking an apt order.
3. The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 in support of his claim. A third party affidavit from Smt S.Giddamma, neighbour and Ex-Corporator, Bangarupeta was also filed on behalf of complainant.
4. In reply to the notice of this Forum, opposite party denied his liability to the complainant’s claim. Opposite party submitted that he insured a policy bearing No.051100/48/09/34/0000069 insuring the complainant’s cloth business financed by Canara Bank, Kurnool covering the risk on stock in trade at Door No.40/221–A, Bangarupeta for Rs.50,000/- for the period from 07-05-2009 to 06-05-2010. The opposite party appointed a surveyor immediately after receiving claim intimation from the complainant to assess the loss. The surveyor inspected the premises, took photographs of the insured place. He also enquired the mother of the complainant and came to know that the insured was doing business at another place near Nataji Talkies. Consolidating all the information gathered, the surveyor concluded that the claim is to be treated as ‘No Claim’ because the change of business from insured premises to another place is contra to the policy terms and conditions. On the basis of surveyor’s report the opposite party repudiated the claim. Hence opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the case as there is no deficiency of service on his part.
5. Sworn affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 are filed by opposite party in his support.
6. Both parties filed their written arguments.
7. Hence the points for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant made out any case against opposite party to prove the deficiency?
- pWhether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- To what relief?
8. Points i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant was running a cloth shop under Rajiv Yuva Shakthi taking loan from Canara Bank, Kurnool. The stock in trader at 40/221-A, Bangarupeta, Kurnool was insured with opposite party for Rs.50,000/- under the shopkeepers insurance policy covering the risk for the period from 07-05-2009 to 06-05-2010. Ex.A4 / Ex.B1 the shopkeepers insurance policy. The floods of Hundry and Thungabhadra Rivers inundated part of Kurnool including the D.No.40/221-A Bangarupeta, Kurnool. Ex.A6 the certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool. According to the complainant the premises where her business was carried out and the address mentioned in the policy are one and the same. The furniture and fixtures, entire stock in trader in the shop were completely spoiled and became useless in the floods. Under the direction of municipal authorities, the entire debris including spoiled bills were removed and the flood affected premises was cleaned by the time the surveyor came to the shop for assessing the loss. Ex.A5 the photos of flood damaged shop. But the surveyor in his report submitted that the complainant did not furnish any record to estimate the loss. No damaged stock was found in the shop and it was cleaned. In addition to that the mother of the insured stated that the complainant was running business at Netaji Talkies. In view of non submission of any record and location difference, the surveyor recommended the claim to be treated as ‘No Claim’. Ex.B2 the surveyor’s repot. In the third party affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, it is noted that the complainant was doing her business at 40/220-A till the date of flood, which is mismatching with the address of insured premises. In view of the above discussions the Forum holds that the complainant failed to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party and so the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
9. Point No.iii:- The claim of the complainant is not properly supported by any material evidence. Hence the repudiation of the claim by opposite party is justified.
10. In the result the complaint is dismissed with no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of April, 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 Stock Purchase Bill for Rs.29,600/- issued by Swathy Silk
House, Kurnool dated 15-09-2009.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Stock Purchase Bill for Rs.38,000/- issued by
Swathy Silk House, Kurnool dated 27-04-2009.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Stock Purchase Bill for Rs.50,000/- issued by
Swathy Silk House, Kurnool.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bearing
No.051100/48/09/34/00000069.
Ex.A5 Photos (Nos.3) along with C.D.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool
Mandal and District dated 19-03-2010.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Letter by complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 25-03-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bearing
No.051100/48/09/34/00000069.
Ex.B2 Survey Report of Sri.E.Mukund dated 16-03-2010 along
with Photos (Nos.10).
Ex.B3 Repudiation Letter by opposite party to complainant
dated 17-03-2010.
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 :
