BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.266 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.84 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL
Between:
The New India Assurancest
Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order (As per Sri***
1. `2`50,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental tension and costs.
2. `6,00,000/- for the period from9.11.2005 to 8.11.2020 by paying premium of`4,628/-. The respondent availed house loan from State Bank of India, Kurnool. His house was inundated in the flood on 2.10.2009 and sustained damage. The respondent submitted claim enclosed thereto estimate for a sum of`2`33,556/- through cheque dated 5.03.3010.
3.
4. `33,556/- and submitted his report on 27.11.2009. As per the assessment of loss made by the surveyor, the appellant paid an amount of`33,556/- through cheque to the respondent. The respondent issued discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of his claim. It is contended that the respondent accepted the amount without making any protest and later filed the complaint.
5. filed his affidavit and the documents,ExB1 to B4.
6.
7. `33,556/- without raising any protest and the surveyor assessed the same amount. It is contended that the surveyor considered the doors and windows as one item and sanitary fixtures under miscellaneous items and allowed`5,425/- as against the claim of`7,000/-. It is contended that the claim for additional amount is illegal and unethical and that the District Forum failed to see that the respondent has not alleged any fraud or misrepresentation in settlement of claim. It is contended that in regard to quantum of liability the insured should resort to arbitration.
8. `22
9.
8.4
10.
It is submitted that the complainant has accepted Rs.33
11.
6. | Due to flow of water and for submerging of various doors and windows | | |
i. | Maindoor9800 | 300 |
ii) | Puja room Door 3X7-21X400 | 8400 | NA |
iii) | Bed room and Rear side door 3 Nos.X7’x30 -63SftX300 | 18900 | 4200 |
iv) | Toilet Doors – 3Nos.x 3’6x2’5-275 | 13475 | 3000 |
v) | Windows 4 Nos. x 6’0x4’0 -96x275 | 26400 | NA |
vi) | Show case and cub board in hall 7’0X7’0X7’0X400 | 12000 | NA |
vii) | Kitchen cub board 12’0”X2’6X400 | 12000 | NA |
7 | Repairing and | 10000 | NA |
9 | Other miscellaneous and unforeseen items | 5425 | 7000 |
| Total | 2500000 | 53200 |
12. `33,556/- towards full and final settlement of his claim. The amount was paid by the appellant on the basis of the report submitted by the surveyor. The respondent did not make protest at the time of receiving the amount or subsequently. We find acceptable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the surveyor considered the damage caused to the doors and windows of the insured house and the respondent received the amount of`33,556/-.
13.
కె.ఎం.కె*
