Complaint filed on: 25.06.2014
Complaint Disposed on:30.11.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.69/2014
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
MohanGowda G.M.
S/o Manjegowda,
Age 58 years,
Beeralingeshwara Traders,
Market Road, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. T.S.UIthaiah, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
National Insurance Co.,
2nd Floor, Yashoram Chambers,
Rathnagiri Road, Chikmagalur
Reptd. By Pradeep Kumar,
Branch Manager.
(OP By Sri/Smt. T.R.Harish, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards the fire accident to his shop/shed. Hence, prays for settlement of the claim of the complainant to the tune Rs.10,10,400/- along with interest @ 18% PA on the said amount and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is running a gunny bag business for the purpose of his livelihood and insured with OP/Company vide policy No.604901/11/133100000243 which is valid from 23.10.2013 to 22.10.2014. Such being the case, the stock of gunny bags in the said shop (godown) were burnt due to fire accident. Immediately, the complainant gave a police complaint and subsequently informed to the OP/Company, for which the OP has paid Rs.1,89,600/- as per survey report through their voucher dated:18/06/2014, but the complainant is entitled to get assured amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and complainant has suffered the loss of stock to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. Instead of paying the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant, the OP without any valid reasons has paid only Rs.1,89,600/-. Hence, the OP rendered deficiency in service in not paying the total loss caused to the complainant as per policy. Hence, prays for direction against the OP to settle the claim to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% PA on the said amount together with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice the OP appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that they have issued the insurance policy under the name of complainant to his stocks vide policy No.604901/11/133100000243 which is valid from 23.10.2013 to 22.10.2014 and the liability of this OP if any is governed by terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the policy. This OP admits that the interest of the complainant relating to the goods stored in his shop (detailed in the policy) was covered at the time of fire accident.
The OP further contended that the complainant reported that gunny bags stored in his shop were damaged due to fire which occurred on 09/02/2014. Immediately after receipt of the information from complainant, this OP appointed one Gopalakrishna Engineer/surveyor to inspect the spot and to quantify the loss caused to the complainant. Accordingly, the said surveyor on 10/02/2014 and 13/02/2014 collected the documents and inspected the spot and submitted the detailed report with respect to the loss caused to the complainant. At the time of submission of the report the said surveyor suggested and quantified the loss to the tune of Rs.1,89,605/- and advised this OP to pay the said amount towards the settlement of the claim. The said surveyor has computed the loss as hereunder:-
Net loss X sum insured Rs.2,70,140/-X1,50,000/- =Rs.2,02,605/-
Actual Stock Rs.20,00,000/-
b) Deductions: Deduct policy excess for fire accident Rs. 10,000/-
c) Deduct Salvage value of partially burnt bags Rs. 3,000/-
d) Liability of the insurer Rs.1,89,605/-
The said procedure adopted by the surveyor of this OP to quantify the loss was explained to the complainant and the complainant had agreed to receive the amount of Rs.1,89,605/- towards the loss and the same amount was credited to the account of the complainant at IDBI Bank Ltd., M.G.Road, Chikmagalur. The complainant also issued full satisfaction voucher, but after receipt of the said amount, the complainant filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. Hence, the complainant cannot claim for enhancement of the claim amount from this OP. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP in settling the claim to the tune of Rs.1,89,600/- to the complainant and they are not liable to pay any claim made by the complainant as such prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P5. The OP also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R4
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained insurance policy to his shop/shed by covering the stocks and machineries such as gunny bags and sewing machineries etc., and the said shop was running by complainant for his livelihood. It is also not in dispute that on 09/02/2014 the shop of the complainant caught fire due to which the entire stock and other equipments were burnt in the fire accident. After the said accident, the complainant reported the accident to the police and OP/Company, for which the OP/Company appointed one surveyor Gopalakrishna to assess the loss and quantify the amount payable by OP/Company. Accordingly the said surveyor had after inspection and assessment submitted the survey report and quantified the loss at Rs.1,89,605/- to be payable from OP/Company. Accordingly the OP/Company paid the said amount to the complainant. But the complainant not satisfying with the said amount had filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service because the complainant had obtained insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.15,00,000/-, whereas the OP after the incident had agreed to pay total loss caused to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-, but has paid the said amount without any valid reasons. Hence, complainant prays for settlement of the claim except payment made earlier.
9. On going through the survey report i.e. Ex.R2 the said surveyor had given a detailed loss caused to the complainant and in the column of incident of loss the said surveyor has admitted that the complainant has suffered loss of entire total gunny bags with other machineries such as sewing machineries etc and it is also noted by the said surveyor that the complainant had a stock of gunny bags worth of Rs.19,00,000/- and machineries worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the said complainant had declared his stock while getting the insurance to the tune of only Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence, the liability of the OP/Company for any loss is restricted to Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently the said surveyor had given an opinion that by admitting the loss to the tune of Rs.10,17,000/- he has applied the average Clause and paid the amount after deducting salvage value and policy excess amount and finally suggested to pay Rs.1,89,605/-. The said average Clause applied by the said surveyor was not explained before this Forum. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the actual loss caused to his stocks and machineries. The policy terms and conditions have not explained the mode of payment i.e. the average clause. It is only a creation of the surveyor who appointed for assess the loss and to quantify the amount payable by OP. As such the OP rendered clear deficiency in service in not paying the actual loss caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,17,000/-.
10. The complainant in his affidavit and complaint has sworn that the OP has assured to pay Rs.12,00,000/- as a compensation towards loss of stocks, whereas they have paid only Rs.1,89,600/-. Hence, we are of the opinion that the OP is liable to pay actual loss caused to the complainant i.e. Rs.10,17,000/- after deducting the entire amount paid by the OP i.e. Rs.1,89,600/-. Further the OP/Company had not produced any materials before this Forum to show that how they came to such amount i.e. Rs.1,89,600/- payable to the complainant on the basis of average clause. It is only a creation made by surveyor without any valid reasons. Hence, we have no hesitation to award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service in not paying the actual loss caused to the complainant. The OP is also liable to pay the litigation expenses at Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the points above accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
- The OP is directed to pay Rs.10,17,000/- to the complainant after deducting the entire amount already paid to the complainant i.e. Rs.1,89,600/-.
- The OP is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
- The OP is further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of complaint to till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 30th day of November 2016).
(RAVISHANKAR)
President
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA)
Member Member
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Endorsement given by town police station, Chikmagalur
Ex.P2 - FIR issued by Fire Force Police Station
Ex.P3 - Insurance Policy
Ex.P4 - Stock Statement for the month of January-2014
Ex.P5 - Value Added Tax registration certificate
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex. R1 - Fire Claim form
Ex. R2 - Investigation report with photos issued by Sri.Gopalakrishna
Surveyor and loss assessor dated: 10/05/2014
Ex. R3 - Copy of the Voucher issued by complainant towards full
Satisfaction of the claim
Ex. R4 - Copy of the policy with terms and conditions
Dated:30.11.2016 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
Tss
