KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
OP.NO.31/99
JUDGMENT DATED: 23-04--2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
R.Latha,
Propritrix,
M/s Krishna Enterprises,
Kizhekancherry Road,
Ayyakkad, Vadakancherry,
Palakkad District. : COMPLAINANT
Repd. by her power of attorney holder
K.Ramachandran,
6/179A, Ayyakkad.P.O,
Palakkad.
(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Repd. by the Divnl. Manager,
Divnl Office, P.B.No.106,
M/s Kollannur Devasis Smarak,
2nd floor, Round East, Thrissur.
2. The Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Palakkad Branch Office,
Fort Maidan-570 705. : OPPOSITE PARTIES
(OP1 & 2 By Adv.Sri.M.Nizamudeen)
3. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.,
Repd. by the Manager,
Vadakkancherry Branch,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.Sri.V.K.Mohankumar)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The complainant who is the proprietrix of M/s.Krishna Enterprises conducting business in rubber and spices has sought for a compensation of Rs.16.75 lakhs towards loss sustained on account of the fire that took place in her godown and consequent losses. It is her case that the business turn over for the particular year 1996-97 was to the tune of 1.3 crores. She had availed cash credit loan and bill discounting facility from the third opposite party/bank. The third opposite party/bank had availed insurance cover for the stock in trade from the second opposite party/insurer and the premium paid is credited to the account of the complainant. The insurance cover was availed in the year 1994 for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and for the year 1996-97 the sum insured was enhanced to Rs.10 lakh. On 7.7.97, a fire had broken out in the go-down at 5.30 am. The entire stock in trade worth over 10 lakhs stored in the go-down was totally destroyed. On the next day itself, the bank Manager and the Field Officer of the insurer visited the spot. The complainant submitted the calim on 7.8.96 for a sum of Rs.10 lakh. The surveyors of the insurer inspected the premises. The complainant had submitted all the required documents as requested by the surveyors. The surveyor had also signed the stock register at the time of his inspection. As the claim was not settled, the complainant addressed the insurer and the bank to get the claim settled at the earliest vide letter dated 27.10.97. Subsequently, the bank had informed that the opposite parties had assured that the claim will be settled in November 1997. The complainant in the absence of receiving the amounts towards the claim was unable to start her business. A suit notice was sent on 30.12.97. The complainant owed money for purchase of rubber sheets and the above persons attempted to take away all the materials including account books and other documents. Police was intimated and the case was registered. The complainant approached the High Court for police protections vide OP.4397/98 and police protection was granted. After a lapse of 8 months, the opposite parties/insurer deputed a fresh surveyor. The petitioner was unable to produce the relevant records as the shop could not be opened. The matter was intimated to the opposite parties. The petitioner was constrained to go on a sathyagraha in front of the bank premises on 19th and 20th of March, 1998 and in front of the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company from 1.4.98 to 8.4.98. The opposite parties/insurers vide letter dated 27.3.98 repudiated the claim on the ground that a portion of the godown was converted into a smoke room and was used for smoking rubber and that the same is in violation of the policy condition that the go-down is to be used exclusively for storage of materials. It is pointed out that in 1994 itself, the building has been assessed by the Engineer deputed by the bank and in the report submitted on 15.12.94 it is specifically mentioned about the construction of the smoke house and the same has been valued at Rs.1,52,711/-. It was the third opposite party/bank who submitted the proposal for the insurance coverage. The insurance authorities also had inspected the premises before insuring the stock in trade of the petitioner. The insurer as well as the bank was aware of the existence of the smoke house in the premises of the go-down. There was no alteration at all subsequent to availing the insurance coverage. The allegation of the insurer that the complainant had failed to co-operate with the surveyors is denied. It is alleged that the claim has been repudiated on account of the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the illegal gratification sought by some of the officers of the Insurance Company. The allegation that the sister concern of the complainant was existing only on paper is false. The third opposite party/bank vide letter dated 15.1.98 had informed the insurer that the bank authorities and the Insurance Officer by name Mr.Sudheendran had inspected the premises jointly prior to providing insurance coverage. It is also pointed out that the insurers had sought for non-standard settlement of the claim and for which the petitioners were not amenable as evident from the letter of the insurer dated 13.5.98. Another engineer of the bank had also inspected the premises before availing the policy on 29.4.97 wherein also the existence of the smoke house is specifically mentioned. The contention of the insurers that the godown could not have contained more than 7620 kgs. of rubber is totally false. The go-down can stock 32-40 tones of rubber at a time. It is contended that the petitioner has sustained a loss of RS.9,75,000/- as goods worth the said amount has been totally destroyed. The complainant could not revive the business on account of the failure on the part of the opposite parties to indemnify the complainant. The petitioner has assessed the loss on the above account at Rs.5 lakhs. A sum of Rs.2 lakh is claimed towards mental agony etc. Altogether the claim is for a sum of Rs.16.75 lakhs.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 the Insurance Divisional Office and the branch respectively represented by the respective Managers have filed a joint version denying the case of the complainant as to the turn over of the business and also as to the loss sustained. It is submitted that on coming to know of the incident immediately Prudential Surveyors Private Ltd; and M/s. Scouts, Kochi were entrusted for survey and to conduct investigation respectively. On the basis of the reports of the surveyor and the investigator, it was found that a portion of the go-down was converted into a smoke room and was used for smoking rubber. The fire originated from this room. The above action is a clear violation of the warranty and condition No.3 (a) of the policy. It is also pointed out that the claim was preferred for destruction of stock of rubber amounting to Rs.24,844.900 kgs. as per the stock register of the firm. Out of this 14500 kgs. were purchased on 4.7.97 from Krishna Agencies( a sister concern) and from 4 individual suppliers. The insured refused to co-operate the surveyor and the claim investigator in supplying accounts books of the sister concern. On enquiries, it was revealed that the sister concern existed only on paper and the transactions are on paper only. The enquiries made with individual suppliers showed that the insured has attempted to heavily inflate the stock. The stock allegedly destroyed cannot be stored in the space available. Only a smaller quantity than is being claimed was involved. The complainant has violated warranty ‘G’ of the policy which specifies that no work or process of any kind except storage or removal of materials be carried on in the go-down. The processing of rubber by smoking was carried out in the go-down which is a violation of the policy condition. Further the complainant did not produce any documentary evidence in spite of repeated requests. It is denied that the existence of the smoke room was known to the opposite parties. The rest of the allegations are denied. The claim was repudiated and the warranty and policy conditions were violated.
3. The third opposite party/Dhanalashmi Bank has filed version stating that the complainant had availed cash credit loan and bill discounting facility from the bank. It is admitted that on 7.7.97, the complainant had informed the opposite parties regarding the fire accident. Opposite parties also visited the premises. The third opposite party had done everything necessary to settle the claim with the Insurance Company. It is denied that the third opposite party is not a necessary party in the present proceeding. The third opposite party was all along taking a constant and lenient view towards the complainant and pressing with the insurer for an early settlement of the claim. The policy was availed by the bank to safeguard the interest of the bank. The policy was issued by the Insurance Company after satisfying all the requirements such as visiting the spot and verifying the stocks. The Development Officer of the Insurance Company Mr.Sudheendran accompanied by the Branch Manager of the bank had inspected the property prior to insuring the same. The Insurance Company was aware of the existence of the smoke house and it is after visiting the spot and verifying the stocks that the policy has been issued.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, RW1, the proof affidavit of the Branch Manager of the third opposite party/Bank and Exts.P1 to P37, R1 to R20 and Ext.C1.
5. This Commission as per judgment dated 31.12.04 of my predecessor disposed of the matter dismissing the complaint only on the ground that the complainant did not submit the records etc sought by the surveyor in order to assess the loss. With respect to the rest of the contentions this commission upheld the case of the complainant that the opposite parties/insurers were aware of the existence of the smoke house at the time of availing the insurance itself. It was also held that it will be possible to store 24844.900 Kgs of rubber in the godown.
6. National Commission as per order dated:7/5/2009 set aside the order of this Commission and directed to decide the complaint afresh without taking further evidence observing that the previous order of this Commission is contradictory in terms.
7. PWs 1 and 2 are the Valuers of the Bank who had valued the premises involved for the purpose of availing loan facilities from the bank in the Year 1994 and 1997 respectively. The bank availed the policy from the insured at first in 1994 and there after enhanced the insured sum from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs from 12.6.97. The fire took place on 7.7.97. The building containing the godown was separately insured for Rs. 5 lakhs. The valuation report submitted by Pw1 to the Bank is Ext. P17. PW1 has proved Ext. P17. Ext. P17 contains the valuation of the residential building and another building which is described as R.C.C. Smoke houses in the same compound. The evidence of Pw1 the Valuer and Ext. P17 valuation report is relied on to establish that the insurance company was aware of the existence of the smoke rooms at the time of availing the first policy itself in the year 1994. PW2 another Valuer visited the premises on 29.4.97 copy of the report filed by him has been produced and marked as Ext. P17(as renumbered). It is mentioned therein that the particular building involved is being used commercially as smoke oven for rubber industry. He has stated that premises involved comprise smoke rooms and stock rooms for commercial purposes. It is pertinent to note that in the proposal form, the copy of which is Ext. R13(B) is with respect to the coverage for the period 2.6.95 to 1.6.96. In the place of the signature of the proposor it is the branch manager of the bank who has signed. It is the admitted case that the insurance policy was taken by the Bank to secure the stock in trade therein. With respect to questions as to whether any process of manufacturing is carried out and as to whether any artificial heat or light is used and as to whether any furnace or boiler firing place is in existence the answer is in the negative. There is no contention for the insurance company that the complainant suppressed material facts. The contention is that the portion of the premises were subsequently converted into smoke rooms and fire originated from the above smoke rooms. The condition No. 3(a) of the policy conditions mentions that the policy shall be voidable in the event of the insured property changed in such a way to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured perils. Warranty G mentions that no work or process etc of any account except storage or removal of material be carried on in the godown to which the insurance applies. We find that the above contentions could not be sustained in view of the fact that from the very beginning the building contained smoke houses as evident from the reports of PWs 1 and 2 the valuers of the bank. It is the bank that has availed the policy and not the complainant. Hence the complainant can not be blamed for any incorrect information if any conveyed to the 3rd opposite party/insurer. It has to be stressed that the bank in the valuation filed itself has asserted that prior to availing the insurance policy Mr. Sudheendran (Rw1) accompanied the bank officials at the time of inspecting the property before availing the insurance policy. It is the case of the 3rd opposite party/Bank that the officials of the insurer visited the property and inspected the stock. The evidence in this regard vide the proof affidavit of the bank manager stands unchallenged. The bank manager was not cross examined. We find that in this regard the preponderance of evidence is definitely on the side of the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. The testimony of Rw1 the official of the insurance company denying the inspection of the premises by him cannot be believed in the circumstances.
8. Further we find that there is no independent or objective evidence to establish the case of the opposite parties mentioned in Ex. R18 the repudiation letter after availing the insurance policy that the complainant converted a portion of the premises as smoke houses. The above is the main contention of the insurer for repudiating the claim vide Ext. R18 letter of repudiation dated 27.3.1998.
9. Another reason mentioned in the repudiation letter is that the quantity of stock claimed by the insured cannot be stored in the space available. We find that the above contention also stands belied in the light of Ext. C1 report submitted by the expert Commission. The commissioner was appointed in the proceedings before this commission. In Ext. C1, the length, breadth and height of the godowns have been specifically noted. The commissioner has mentioned that the godown room in the ground floor alone can stock 26,293.68kg of rubber. It is pointed out that no objection to the commission report has been filed. Hence we find that the above contention of the opposite parties/ insurance company stands totally disproved.
10. It is evident from Ext.R14, the report of the surveyor that the entire stock kept in the godown has been destroyed. The survey report only contains assessment of the loss with respect to the building and not with respect to the stock. According to the complainant the relevant documents were verified by the surveyor. It is asserted that the surveyor has endorsed in Ext.P.26 stock register. The same has been mentioned in the complaint as well as in Ext.P11 lawyer notice dated:30/12/1997 as well as in Ext.P22 letter dated:4/4/1997 addressed to the Chairman of the insurance company. In Ext.P26 below the entries dated 4/7/1997 there is a signature on the left hand side which is dated:8/7/1997. It is vide the entries dated:4/7/1997 that the bulk purchase from Krishna Agencies the sister concern of the complainant and from 4 other individuals have been noted and the total quantity noted as 24,844.900 Kgs. It is the contention of the complainant that the surveyor had examined the stock register on 8/7/1997 ie the next day of the fire accident. The fire accident took place on 7/7/1997 at 5.30 am. The counsel for the complainant has stressed that the complainant could not have manipulated the stock register during such a short time. The details of the amounts paid are also mentioned in the entries with respect to the purchases. The complainant has also contended that the above quantity of stock was procured for supplying to Apolo Tyres. The complainant has also produced Ext.P37, the letter from Apolo Tyres mentioning that orders are pending for supply of 49,000.Kgs of rubber vide orders dated from 2/7/1997 up to 5/7/1997. Of course nobody on behalf of the Apolo Tyres were examined. Ext.P14 (a) dated:7/11/1997 is the letter from the surveyor’s seeking details including stock registers, purchase bills etc etc amounting to 19 items for the purpose of quantifying the loss on account of the destruction of the stock. The complainant has produced correspondence asserting that the particulars shown had already been provided to the surveyors earlier and that subsequently on account of the conduct of some creditors of the complainant, from whom commodities have been purchased the above could not be produced. It is stated that they attacked the office of the complainant and took away the books and materials and criminal case at the instance of the complainant and police protection petition before the High Court have been filed. It is mentioned that for the time being, the complainant is not in a position to supply the details sought for.
11. Of course there is nothing to show that the complainant has furnished subsequently all the details sought for at the instance of the insurance company. The surveyors had also sought for the details of the sister concerns of the complainant ie, Krishna Agencies and Sreeram Spices. It is the contention of the insurance company that Krishna Agencies from whom a bulk purchase has been made on 4/7/1997 existed only in paper. The complainant has produced the audited balance sheets and income tax returns (vide Ext.P23 to P25 and P27 to P36) of the M/s Krishna Agencies Sreeram Spices. The above documents do establish the case of the complainant with respect to the turn over of the business of the complainant and as to the independent existence of the sister concerns. There is no contra evidence in this regard.
12. The case of the insurance company as to the alleged falsity of the quantum claimed is based on the report of the investigators ie.Ext.R15. We find that nobody on behalf of the firm that conducted the investigation was examined to prove Ext.R15 report. Hence we find that no reliance can be placed on Ext.R15 investigation report in the absence of direct proof of the same. There is no explanation as to why Ext.R15 investigation report could not be proved. Hence we are unable to place any reliance on ext.R15 investigation report.
13. It is also pertinent to note that the surveyor was not examined. The evidence of the surveyor is of prime importance as it is the definite case of the complainant that the surveyor has endorsed Ext.P26 stock register on 8/7/1997 which is the next day of the fire accident and that the relevant records were also examined by the surveyors. There is no reason as to why the surveyor was not examined at the instance of the insurance company. The surveyor and the investigator ought to have stood the test of cross-examination.
14. Although the complainant has not produced independent evidence apart from Ext.P26 copy of the stock register and Ext.P37 certificate of the order outstanding from Apolo tyres. It is evident from Ext.R14 report of the surveyor itself that the entire stock of rubber was destroyed in the fire. As already noted the dispute is only with respect to the quantum of the loss sustained. We have already found that the contention of the insurance company that the area of the godown is incapable to keep the stock of 24844.900 Kgs of rubber was found incorrect. It is possible to keep in the godown more than quantities of the commodity. As pointed out by the counsel for the insurance company, the complainant has only claimed for a sum of Rs.9.75 lakhs towards the loss with respect to fire. It was submitted that another complaint has been filed with respect to the loss sustained to the building. The present complaint is confined to the loss with respect to the stock. As pointed out there is no pleading that 24844.900 Kgs of rubber was destroyed. But we find that the above is no reason to reject the claim as the claim submitted specifically mentions the quantum of loss. The stock at the time of fire is 24941.500 Kgs, the approximate price of which is mentioned as Rs.10.lakh. Ext.P3 claim is dated:7/8/1997 which is one month after the fire accident.
15. As to the allegation that the quantum of the stock at the time of fire has been inflated as alleged by the insurance company the contra evidence is confined to Ext.P26 stock register and Ext.P37 certificate from Apolo Tyres. All the same we find that the correspondence between the 3rd opposite party bank and the insurance company would disclose that the 2nd opposite party branch office of the insurance company had offered to settle the claim on non standard basis. Ext.R12, the letter dated:7/4/1998 from the bank to the insurance company mentions that Shri. Gopakumar, the Divisional Manager of the insurance company of Thrissur office had agreed to treat the claim as a non standard one and to settle the same by paying 75% of the loss assessed. Ext.R1 to R12 are the correspondence produced by the 3rd opposite party bank. The bank was continuously pressing the insurance company for getting the claim settled. As per Ext.R13 letter, the bank had even cautioned that in the absence of a favourable response for an early settlement, the bank will be constrained to review the business relationship with the insurance company. Of course vide Ext.P20 letter dated:13/5/1998, the insurance company has disclaimed any such offer and the Divisional Manager has clarified that though such request was made it was not agreed for the same. But we find no reason to disbelieve the statement contained in Ext.R12 letter of the bank especially as Mr.Gopakumar, the Divisional Manager was not examined to disprove the above statement. Further the proof affidavit filed by the Manager of the bank stands unchallenged as the bank manager was not cross-examined. We have also found that the contention of the insurance company that they were not aware of the existence of the smoke house in the godown building was found to be totally incorrect and false. In the circumstances we find that it would be reasonable to consider the loss sustained to the complainant due to the destruction of the stock of rubber at Rs.7.lakhs, after providing for certain allowances with respect to the possible exaggeration of the quantum as contended by the insurance company and also in view of the fact that the sum insured was increased to Rs.10.lakhs from Rs.6lakhs from 12/6/1997 onwards only. Hence the insurance company ie opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7.lakhs as compensation with respect to the insured sum.
16. The contention that the 3rd opposite party bank is an un necessary party cannot be upheld in view of the fact that it is the bank manager who has signed in the proposal form instead of the complainant and it is the bank that had availed the policy on behalf of the complainant and it is the bank manager who has filled up the proposal form.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part as follows:-
The opposite parties 1 and 2 will pay a sum of Rs.7.lakhs to the complainant with interest at 8% per annum from the date of complaint ie 24/3/1999. The complainant will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.7500/- towards cost. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 23/4/2011, the date of this order.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS
Ext.P1 : True copy of the power of attorney executed by the
petitioner in favour of Ramachandram.
Ext.P2 : True copy of the policy and its endorsements.
Ext.P3 : True copy of the claim petition.
Ext.P4 : True copy of the FIR.
Ext.P5 : -do- reply dtd:7-8-97 to the surveyor.
Ext.P6 : -do- letter dated:20-10-97.
Ext.P7 : -do- letter dated:6-11-97.
Ext.P8 : -do- letter dated:17-10-97.
Ext.P9 : -do- letter dated:19-10-97.
Ext.P10 : -do- representation dt:29-11-97.
Ext.P11 : -do- suit notice dt:30-12-97.
Ext.P12 : -do- letter dtd:23-3-98.
Ext.P13 : -do- pamphlet dtd:27-3-98.
Ext.P14 : -do- pamphlet dtd:28-3-98.
Ext.P15 : -do- letter dtd:19-3-98.
Ext.P16 : -do- letter of repudiation dt:27-3-98.
Ext.P16(a) : copy of the cover.
Ext.P17 : -do- valuation report.
Ext.P18 : -do- letter dt:15-1-98.
Ext.P19 : -do- letter dtd:16-7-97 issued by
M/s Elgi Thread.
Ext.P20 : -do- letter dt:13-5-98.
Ext.P21 : -do- letter dtd:31-7-98.
Ext.P22 : -do- letter dated:4-4-98.
Ext.P23 : Copy of the Income Tax Return filed by R.Latha, Proprietrix, Krishna enterprises for the Assessment year 1995-96, along with the duly audited profit and loss account and balance sheet of Sri.Krishna Enterprises for the period 1995-96, certified by Auditor/Chartered Accountant who prepared and presented the Report.
Ext.P24 :Copy of the Income Tax Return filed by R.Latha, Proprietrix, -do- assessment year 1996-97…………………-do-……………for the period 1996-97…………….report.
Ext.P25 : Copy of the Income Tax Return filed by R.Latha, Proprietrix, -do- assessment year 1997-98…………………do……………for the period 1997-98…………….report.
Ext.P26 : Copy of the stock register of Krishna Enterprises from 3.4.97 to 27.7.97.
Ext.P27 : Copy of Income Tax Return filed by R.Hemamalini, Proprietrix, Sree Ram Spices for the assessment year 1994-95, along with the audited profit & loss account and balance sheet of Sree Ram Spices for the period 1994-95, certified by Auditor/Chartered Accountant, who prepared and presented the report.
Ext.P28 : Copy of Income Tax Return filed by R.Hemamalini, Proprietrix, Sree Ram Spices for the assessment year 1995-96, along with the audited profit & loss account and balance sheet of Sree Ram Spices for the period 1995-96, certified by Auditor/Chartered Accountant, who prepared and presented the report.
Ext.P28(a): Copy of Income Tax Return filed by R.Hemamalini, Proprietrix, Sree Ram Spices for the assessment year 1996-97, along with the audited profit & loss account and balance sheet of Sree Ram Spices for the period 1996-97, certified by Auditor/Chartered Accountant, who prepared and presented the report.
Ext.P29 : Notarised copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam, dt:4-01-02 in Sales Tax Appeal STA No.212/2001 filed by M/s Krishna Agencies.
Ext.P30 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns to the income tax authorities for the year 1989-90.
Ext.P31 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns to the income tax authorities for the year 1990-91.
Ext.P32 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns for the year 1992-93.
Ext.P33 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns for the year 1993-94.
Ext.P34 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns for the year 1993-94.
Ext.P35 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns to the income tax authorities for the year 1992-93 tax returns for the year 1994-95.
Ext.P36 : Certified copy of the Accounts of M/s Krishna Agencies submitted with income tax returns to the income tax authorities for the year 1992-93 tax returns for the year 1995-96.
Et.P37 : Copy of the certificate issued by M/s Appollo Tyres dated:21-7-97.
COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS
PW1 : M.Nanu
PW2 :K.R.Viswanathan
PW3 :K.Ramachandran
OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS
Ext.R1 :Office copy of letter dt:7.7.97 of 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R2 : Office copy of letter dt:29.10.97 of 3rd OP sent to the complainant.
Ext.R3 : Office copy of letter dt:19.11.97 of 3rd OP sent to the complainant.
Ext.R4 : Office copy of letter dt:1.12.97 of 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R5 :Letter dtd:8.12.97 of the 2nd OP sent to the 3rd OP.
Ext.R6 :Office copy of letter dt:26.12.97 of the 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R7 : Office copy of letter dt:15.1.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R8 : Office copy of letter dt:12.3.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R9 : Office copy of letter dt:19.3.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R10 : Copy of letter dated:23.3.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the 2nd OP.
Ext.R11 : : Office copy of letter dt:2.4.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the complainant.
Ext.R12 : Copy of letter dated:7.4.98 of the 3rd OP sent to the 1st OP.
Ext.E13 : Copy of the policy.
Ext.R13(a): Copy of the conditions & warranty and bank clause.
Ext.R13(b): Copy of the proposal form.
Ext.R13(c): Copy of the endorsement for enhancing the sum insured.
Ext.R14 :Survey report dated:7.11.1997 prepared by M/s Prudential Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.R14(a) : Copy of letter dt:14.7.97 issued by M/s Prudential Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant.
Ext.R14(b) : Copy of letter dt:20.10.97 issued by M/s Prudential Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant.
Ext.R15 :Investigation report dt:26.3.98 prepared by M/s Scouts, Sree Sadan, Janatha Road, Vyttila, Kochi.
Ext.R16 :Copy of the letter dt:27.10.97 issued by the complainant to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and its envelope.
Ext.R17 :Letter dt:22.1.98 issued by Development Officer, Gr.I, Mr.E.S.Sudheendran to the 2nd opposite party.
Ext.R18 : Copy of the repudiation letter dt:27.3.98 issued by the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the 3rd opposite party and to the complainant.
Ext.R19 :Copy of letter dt:20.3.98 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the 3rd opposite party.
Ext.R20 :Copy of letter dt:13.5.98 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the 3rd opposite party.
COMMISSIONER’S EXHIBIT
Ext.C1 : Commission report submitted by the expert commissioner, N.Appukuttan Pillai.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
RW1 : E.S.Sudheendran
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
