KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 266/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17.5.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Manager, :APPELLANT New India Assurance Company Ltd., Thrissur, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Thiruvananthpauram. (By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh) Vs. 1. Narendra Varma, : RESPONDENTS Vrindavan Palace, Nilambur Kovilakom, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder N.Rajeev Varma, Sowparnika, Balakrishna Menon Road, Edappally, Ernakulam. 2. The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch Paramekkavu Devaswom Builidngs, Thrissusr. (By Adv.R.S.Kalkurs, counsel for R2) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party/New India Assurance Co. in CC.920/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,679/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that his building under construction was insured with the appellant against natural calamities. He availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the 2nd opposite party bank. He was abroad while the construction was going on. On 5.6.04 the building collapsed due to torrential rain and heavy wind. 3. The 1st opposite party has contended that it was not for a building under construction that the fire policy was issued. Hence the same amount to suppression of material facts. The policy covered for 5 years is admitted. It is denied that the building collapsed not due to torrential rain and wind but on account of poor quality of materials used. It is also contended that the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,93,679/- although complainant has made claim of Rs.3,09,405/-. The appellant repudiated the claim. 4. The 2nd opposite party/bank has supported the case of the complainant and has denied that any facts were suppressed. It was asserted that it was the building under construction that was insured. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P6 and R1 to R24. 6. The counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that in Ext.R19 report of the surveyor has incorporated the opinion of the experts pointed out by the complainant that the quality of laterite stone used was low. The above report of the experts commissioned by the complainant was not produced by the complainant. The appellant has produced the same along with the appeal memorandum. The opinion of the above inspection report is a cryptic one paragraph report of the expert wherein it is mentioned that the quality of laterite is very poor. We find that there is no specific opinion in the above report as to the cause for the collapse of the building. The above experts were also not examined. As pointed out considered for the appellant the Forum has also admitted that the quality of the laterite used was low. But we find that there is nothing to show that it is only on account of the above fact that the building collapsed. The Forum has observed that it is on account of the laterite having wet continuously by heavy rain and also by strong wind that the structure collapsed . 7. We find that the contention of the appellant that there is suppression of material facts and that it was not the building under construction that was insured cannot be countenanced. The appellants are expected to inspect the building before issuing the policy. All the same we find that in view of the fact that it stands admitted that the quality of the material used is low the same also would have attributed to the occurrence of the fall of the building. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is not entitled for the entire amounts awarded by the Forum below ie. the amount assessed by the Surveyor. Hence the order of the Forum is liable to be modified as follows. The complainant would be entitled only for 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor ie. 1,45,259/- on non standard basis. The appellant is directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order. The amount of cost ordered to be paid ie. Rs.2000/- is sustained. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. Office is directed to forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
