IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 17th day of March, 2018.
Filed on 07/08//2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.212/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Canoe World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Pallikkasseril, Alappuzha Branch,
Kalarcod, Alappuzha.
Alappuzha. Rep. By its Divisional Manager.
Rep. By its Managing Director (By Adv.K.N.Venugopala Panicker)
Aravindakshan Nair.
(By Adv.K.Preetha)
ORDER
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case precisely is as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of the house boat namely `Canon World One’. On 8th September 2016 while the said house boat is about to take a cruise, heavy smoke and fume were noticed to have been coming out of the generator kept on the rear side of the house boat. The house boat staff along with other people tried their best to extinguish the fire. They rained water over the generator, however the flames spread in no time. Huge sounds were coming out. Finding no other way out to avoid the possible hazard by fire, the material generator was felled into the water. The instant incident was duly intimated to the Nedumudy Police and fire and rescue force. The generator was recovered from the water to see that the same was totally damaged. The generator was taken to the authorized service center for repair. At the time of the accident, the generator was holding a valuable insurance with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) bearing No.571401/22/16/4100000015. Consequent upon the accident, the opposite party on 29th September 2016 submitted a claim for an amount of Rs.141056/- (Rupees one lakh forty one thousand and fifty six only) before the opposite party. There upon the complainant party on 28th November 2011 caused its surveyor prepares a survey report. Notwithstanding, the complainant’s repeated requests and demands the opposite did not process the complainant’s claim. The opposite party committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite party inflicted financial loss as well as hardships to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The core of the opposite party’s contentions is that the investigator appointed by them expressed serious apprehensions as to the authenticity of the claim. No eye witnesses were there except the crew members of the vessel. When the investigator visited the material vessel, no traces of fire could be found out on the rear side of the vessel. That apart according to the opposite party, the fire if any could have been easily doused using fire extinguishers available in the house boat instead of the generator being felled into the water. The generator is pretty old worth only an amount up to Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). The Fire Force was not duly informed. The complainant with view proved the expense of the revamp of the generator. The complainant with view to wangle insurance amount on the old generator had wilfully caused the same fell into the water. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought for from this Forum. The complaint is only liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party fervently contends.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself, and the documents Exts. A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, save filing version no further evidence was adduced.
4. Keeping in view, the contentions of the parties the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the damage sustained by the generator was due to the fire as claimed by the complainant?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim amount?
5. We meticulously perused the pleadings, affidavits and the argument notes placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of the house boat namely `Canon World One’. On 8th September 2016 when the boat was about to go for a sail large volumes of smoke smolder was seen coming out from the generator kept on the rear side of the vessel. The house boat personnel along with other people made all out efforts to douse the fire. When the said attempts failed, eventually they were forced to push the generator down to water for evading a possible devastation. The generator after being retrieved from water was revamped in the authorized service center. The complainant on 29th September 2016 put forth a claim with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,41,056/- (Rupees one lakh forty one thousand and fifty six only) the amount he expended for service of generator. The opposite party evaded to make the payment on casting serious doubt the veracity of the nature of the accident as claimed by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the material generator was almost worn out and the worn-out generator only costs an amount up to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) at the maximum. The fire-accident and the damage of generator all were a mere ploy on the part of the complainant to avail insurance amount from the opposite party, the opposite party so contends.
6. Bearing the contentions of both the parties alive in mind, we effected a searching survey of the facts and circumstances that come up before us in this case. The insurance policy does not seem disputed. Now, the immediate short question that arises for consideration is whether there was actual accidental fire that damaged the generator I the manner as alleged by the complainant. It is significant to notice that the Exbt A7 & Exbt A9 certificates issued by SI of Police Nedumudi and Fire and Rescue Force respectively disclose clearly that a fire accident had taken place on the material day as put forth by the complainant. It is crucial to notice that the opposite party has failed to discredit the evidence the complainant let in rather never made it a point to take any steps towards the same. In the given facts and materials of the instant case, the contentions canvassed by the opposite party do not cause any diffidence in the mind of the Forum to accept the case of the complainant. Going by the materials available on record, it is unfolded that the complainant is emphatic as to the aspect that he has intimated the accident to the opposite party forthwith and approached them for the policy amount on umpteen occasions. Thus viewing form any perspective, the contentions set up by the opposite party to deny the complainant the policy amount do not merit acceptance. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
7. For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,41,056/- (Rupees one lakh forty one thousand and fifty six only) from the opposite party. As such, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,41,056/- with 9% interest from the date of the instant complaint till its recovery. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation
Pronounced in open Forum on this 17th day of March 2018.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - B.Aravindakshan Nair (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Articles of Association
Ext.A2 - Copy of Memorandum of Association
Ext.A3 - Policy schedule
Ext.A4 - Copy of claim form
Ext.A5 - Copy of survey report of Port Department
Ext.A6 - Certificate of registration
Ext.A7 - Issued certificate, dtd on 20.09.2016
Ext.A8 - Copy of Email, dtd on 09.09.2016
Ext.A9 - Copy of report of Fire and Rescue
Ext.A10 - Quotation, dtd on 22.09.2016
Ext.A11 - Copy of survey report, dtd on 28.11.2016
Ext.A12 - Retail Invoice, dtd on 30.10.2012
Evidence of the opposite parties :- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
