Date of filing:16.7.2014
Date of Disposal:21.10.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.
C.C.No.148 OF 2014
Between :
Busam Naga Suryanarayana, S/o Gurunadham, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandalam, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
The National Insurance Company, Rep., by its Branch Manager, 1st Floor, D.No.11/1170, Chemmanagiri Peta, Vijayawada Road, Machilipatnam.
…....Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 13.10.2014 in the presence of complainant appearing in person and Sri V.V.S.Sai Babu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
1. This C.C. 70/2010 is filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum-I Krishna at Machilipatnam on 27.12.2010 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming a sum of Rs.81,200/- under insurance policy issued by the opposite party and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
2. The complainant, who is a resident of Mallavolu of Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, is a weaver. He used to purchase yarn and give it to the weaving workers for preparation of sarees and the complainant used to pay wages to the weaving workers. The complainant obtained cash credit to a limit of Rs.1,00,000/- from the bank. He had also taken a policy for Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party National Insurance Company and paid premium. The complainant suffered loss to an extent of Rs.81,200/- due to damage caused to the yarn in the cyclone known as OGNI cyclone in the year, 2006. When the complainant informed it to the bank, they asked the complainant to inform the insurance company as the bank had paid premium for insurance coverage. Then, the complainant informed the Manager of the opposite party about loss of yarn and loss to the extent of Rs.81,200/-. On 10.11.2006 i.e., three days after giving a letter to the insurance company by the complainant, a surveyor by name T.Ramesh Babu came to the complainant and inspected the bills, day book, ledger, stock register, the damaged yarn and the yarn given to weavers and he signed in the registers. The surveyor told the complainant that the Branch Manager of the opposite party would pay the compensation. Though the complainant suffered loss to an extent of Rs.81,200/-, the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.15,000/-. Fifteen days thereafter, the complainant approached the Branch Manager of the opposite party and asked for compensation. He replied that the complainant was to inform the opposite party at the time of cyclone and the loss occasioned to the complainant cannot be compensated. The complainant could not inform the insurance company as he was protecting himself from heavy rain in that cyclone. Consequently, the complainant made an application to the District Legal Services Authority on 8.5.2009. The District Legal Services Authority asked the Branch Manager of the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.81,200/- with interest. The Branch Manager told that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company has to take decision. Then the District Legal Services Authority advised the complainant to approach this Forum and informed an advocate name to the complainant, but the said advocate did not file the complaint for a long time. So, the complainant filed the present complaint in person on 27.12.2010.
3. As the opposite party called absent and not contested the matter the Hon’ble District Forum Krishna at Machilipatnam gave an ex-parte order on 11.2.2011 directing the opposite party to pay Rs.69,970/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.12.2010 the date of the complaint till payment and further to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
4. Later the opposite party preferred an appeal in F.A.No.312/11 in C.C.70/2010 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad and the Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad allowed the appeal on 27.6.2012 set aside the order of Forum-I dated 11.2.2011 and remand the matter to District Consumer Forum-I with a direction to give opportunity to the appellants to file written version and afford opportunity to both the parties to give evidence and for that directing the both parties to appear before the District Consumer Forum-I Krishna at Machilipatnam without insisting fresh notice.
5. The District Forum at Machilipatnam issued notices to both parties and the opposite party filed its version and documents and contested the matter.
6. The opposite party filed its version which runs briefly as follows:
The bank offered the stock of yarn for insurance for fire coverage with other allied perils and the complainant was issued a standard fire and special perils covering the stock of yarn kept lying at D.No.6/70, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandal, belongs to M/s Sri Chandrasekhara Handloom Productions for the first time in the year, 2002 the claim is arisen in the year, 2006 renewal policy. There was cyclone on 30.10.2006 which resulted the damage of the stock yarn insured. As per the survey report, the loss was not payable because there was no evidence of flood effected symptoms and the stock damage in the insured premises. The insured gave stock of yarn to others for processing and such stock was affected damage at other premises which was not fall under the coverage of policy. Because the policy covered stock at the insured’s premises only but not at other’s place. Hence the company repudiated the claim on 5.1.2007 with the same reason, it was communicated to the complainant and the same was submitted before the District Legal Services Authority when the complainant approached them. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim is not tenable and there is no evidence supported the claim, in order to prove the claim of damage which was effected in his premises. Admittedly, the complainant’s letter dated 10.11.2006 clearly reveals that the stock is not in his premises and the same is placed somewhere and maintained by the persons mentioned in the letter. As per the policy condition (General Exclusion No.13) the claim is not payable as loss said to have been occurred elsewhere, other than the insured’s premises mentioned in the policy. The opposite party has already informed through its letter, dated 5.1.2007, the details provided certain clarifications, but the complainant has not furnished the said information to the company, and hence, the company closed the claim of the complainant due to “NO EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE CAUSE OF LOSS”. In addition to that, the claimant clearly stated in his letter that he gave the stock to other weavers of processing work and it was got damaged at other premises, which was other than the insured’s premises, hence, the company has no liability for the stock lying at other premises. So also, it was clear as per the claim form as well as proposal and policy that the insured (complainant) was only the sole owner but not others. The opposite party further stated that as per the Ex.A.19 pass book clearly shows that the banker has remitted only Rs.278/- towards deduction on 2.6.2006 and the other documents placed before the Forum are clippings of the news papers which cannot be taken into consideration and the damage is if any occurred in the insured premises but whereas he stated the damage alleged to have occurred in some other premises and hence, the complainant cannot be claim damages. In support of that the assessment of damages and the falling of rain the complainant did not file any document to show as evidence. The opposite party further stated that as per the proposal and policy the occupation of the insured is a dying unit and whereas as per his letter it was differ from the dying unit, there was no identify about the subject matter and as per the contract law, the insurance contract is void and hence, the insurance company has no liability to pay any damages to the complainant. It is further stated that oral evidence should not convince the Forum to get the favourable orders unless and until placed to prove his claim by the documentary evidence. The opposite party stated that the net cost of stock assessed is Rs.14,641.10ps less that of sum assured is Rs.1,10,000/- and hence it is under insurance factor is not applicable. The peril is act of God for which it is standard fire and special perils policy specifies, the compulsory deductable of 5% of each claim subject to minimum of Rs.10,000/- and after deduction the loss assessment which mentioned in his report in Clause No.11 to 13, the policy compulsory deductible amount of stock effected Rs.14,641.10ps (-) Rs.10,000/- the net loss affected is Rs.4,641/- which is rounded. The remarks also noted in the surveyor report (1) as there is no evidence to ascertain the proximate cause of loss, (2) as per the accounts submitted by insured which as inspected, at the time of inspection no sales/consumption of materials found during the present financial year, (3) the occupation of risk (handloom units) is referred to that declared by the insured (dying unit) at the time of inception of risk, (4) since the policy under consideration giving the scope of cover for the stock, which is available at the insured premises only, the other stock loss declared by the insured which is sustained various weavers premises is not considered, the above remarks the claim is not tenable and submitted his report to the company, on 2.1.2007, basing on the report of surveyor, account of complainant mentioned seized at the time of inspections as per the claim form submitted by the claimant, after thorough perusal the claim is repudiated, and intimated the same to the complainant on 5.1.2007, stating “NO EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE CAUSE OF LOSS” on the ground, the claim is closed and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the company. The opposite party further stated that as per the policy terms and conditions it is mentioned as per clause No.13 the claim is not maintainable. The opposite party further stated that the complainant filed the complaint after long lapse of time and he approached various Forums before approached this Hon’ble Forum after lapse of 3 years and no prior notice has been given, prior to filing of the complaint and hence, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation i.e., it is barred by limitation. Hence, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.22 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
8. The District Consumer Forum-I, Krishna at Machilipatnam perusing the documents filed by the complainant Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.22 and documents filed by the opposite party Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 the Hon’ble Member FAC President gave an order taking into consideration of the facts, the surveyor report who assessed the loss of the material at Rs.14,641/- and as there was a Clause (b) in General Exclusions under Ex.B.1 i.e., standard fire and special perils policy (material damage) that “the first 5% of each and every loss subject to minimum Rs.10,000/- arising out of other perils in respect of which the insured is indemnified by this policy. The excess shall apply per event per insured”. Basing on this clause, the Surveyor deducted the said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the total loss assessed i.e., Rs.14,641.10ps and opined that the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,641.10ps. A letter dated 17.7.2009 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party, under Ex.A.18 = Ex.B.4, stating that the stock belongs to him was kept with him and also kept with other weavers, worth Rs.81,200/- was damaged due to cyclone. But there was an endorsement with regard to the coverage in the policy Ex.B.1 that “053: Cloth Processing units outside the complex/compound of the textile mills and cloth processing units which are not owned by the textile mills but are situated within the textile mills complex/compound”. It means to say that the policy covers the stock at the insured’s premises only but not at other’s place. The letter dated 10.11.2006 Ex.A.2, addressed by the complainant to the opposite party that the stock at present is not in his premises and the stock is placed at the premises belongs to the persons (i) Kurma Yugandhar, (ii) B.Rajasekhar, (iii) P.Subrahmanyam, (iv) R.A.P.Sastry, (v) K.Koteswara Rao and (vi) P.Venkateswara Rao and requested the opposite party to assess the loss with regard to the stocks kept with others i.e., outside the premises of the complainant’s premises, and further stated in Ex.A.2 that the worth of the stocks remained with him in his premises is only Rs.15,000/-. Under the above said circumstances, the Member, FAC President of District Consumer Forum-I, Krishna at Machilipatnam opined that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and failed to pay even the worth of the loss of the material damaged in the cyclone assessed by the insurance surveyor in his report Ex.B.2. As such he gave an order.
Allowing the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,641.10ps i.e., the loss assessed by the insurance surveyor together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 2.1.2007 i.e., the date of receipt of insurance surveyor’s report by the opposite party till the date of realization to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the complaint. The time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. The Lady Member of the District Consumer Forum-I, Krishna at Machilipatnam deferred to the order given by Member, FAC President and gave different order taking into consideration Ex.B.1 insurance policy. Ex.A.19 copy of bank pass book of the complainant, the deduction of Rs.278/- towards insurance premium on 2.6.2006. Ex.A.13 copies of newspaper clippings which shows heavy damage caused due to OGNI cyclone in coastal area on 30.10.2006 and its wide spread damage caused to the coastal areas in and around Machilipatnam in the cyclone of the year, 2006. The claim of the complainant dated 7.11.2006 under the original of Ex.A.1 stating that he suffered loss to an extent of Rs.81,200/- due to cyclone on 30.10.2006 and it was continuous rainfall for five days. The paper clippings reveal that the residents of Guduru, Kalpalam, Mallavolu and Polavaram were shifting to rehabilitation centers as water entered into the houses in Mallavolu and other villages the looms were submerged in rain water.
10. According to the statement of the complainant a surveyor came to him and inspected the records and also the damaged material. The copies of relevant files filed by the complainant appear to bear the initials of the surveyor made on 6.12.2006. Ex.A.8 shows the quantity of 80 bundles was brought to stock from 24.5.2006 to 4.9.2006 and the balance was shown as 80 bundles. The amount of yarn purchased is noted in Ex.A.6 as Rs.84,970/-. The complainant says in his letter dated 10.11.2006 that the value of the stock he had on that days was Rs.15,000/. When this amount is deducted from the value of total yarn stocked by the complainant, the loss comes to Rs.69,970/-. According to the complainant, the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.15,000/- the assessment of the surveyor was based on the stock remained with the complainant after distribution to other weavers and damage caused to such stock. When the complainant was in the practice of giving yarn to other weaving workers on payment of wages the loss of yarn at their looms is also the loss caused to the complainant. Therefore loss cannot be confined to Rs.15,000/- only.
11. She pointed out that the opposite party admits that the complainant has taken the insurance policy belongs to M/s Sri Chandrasekhara Handloom Productions for the first time in the year, 2002 the claim is arisen in the year, 2006 renewal policy and the insurance for fire coverage with other allied perils and he was issued a standard fire and special perils covering the stock of yarn kept lying at D.No.6/70, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandal. The opposite party admits that there was a cyclone on 30.10.2006 which resulted the damage of the stock yarn insured. The opposite party states that as per the policy condition (Gen.exclusion No.13) the claim is not payable as loss said to have been occurred elsewhere, other than the insured’s premises mentioned in the policy. The surveyor inspected the premises of the complainant and mentioned in his survey report that on verification, there was no proper evidence of flood effected symptoms within the insured premises and moreover the other stock loss which was declared by the insured was outside weavers does not fall under the purview of policy and the complainant is entitled for Rs.4,641/- as per the surveyor report and calculation.
12. Taking into consideration Ex.B.1 the photocopy of National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata showing standard fire and special perils policy (material damage) containing four pages. Ex.B.1 page 3 shows the payment of the insured “M/s Sree Chandra Sekhara Handloom” clearly shows the nature of the policy “Cloth processing units outside the complex/compound of the textiles mills and cloth processing units which are not owned by the textile mills but are situated within the textile mills complex/compound. Ex.B.2 copy of Insurance Surveyor and loss assessor report point III, the insured “Modus Operandi” clearly mentioned the insured name M/s Chandrasekhara Handloom Production & Trading Company established in the year 1998. Modus operandi of the firm is to purchase yarn, zari and art silk from outside and either weaving them to finished handloom product like sarees or to supply the yarn to others for weaving for proper mazuri and to sell the handloom products to wholesale shops. Ex.B.1 copy of the standard fire & special perils policy (material damage) point VI policy covers under storm, cyclone, typhoon tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation and in the present case the cause for the damage of the insured is “OGNI” a cyclone.
13. She raised a point stated by the opposite party that Point 13 in the Ex.B.1 and the general exclusion, which is related to the shifting of the machinery and equipment, which is not related to the present case.
14. She also pointed out that the insurance company had given a reply dated 5.1.2007 under Ex.A.16 stating that the file of the complainant was closed as he has not complied with required papers and documents in spite of letters and reminders and as there is no evidence to ascertain the cost of loss. When a surveyor himself had gone to the complainant it would be absurd to say that the complainant did not comply with the required papers. Ex.A.1 dated 7.11.2006 clearly shows the complaint was given to opposite party but surveyor made report on 6.12.2006 that was admitted by opposite party. Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 clearly shows the nature of the insurance policy and the Surveyor of the insurance had full knowledge of insured policy and it is the duty of the surveyor to survey the places where the yarn the material was distributed to the other persons by the insured person. Therefore, the defence taken by the insurance company through its letter under Ex.A.16 cannot be accepted. Consequently she held that the complainant is entitled to the amount of (Rs.84,970/- - Rs.15,000/-) Rs.69,970/- with interest thereon at a reasonable rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint and also costs of Rs.1,000/-.
15. She had opinioned that there is delay in filing the complaint. The repudiation of the claim was 5.1.2007 vide Ex.A.16. It is not known when this letter was served on the complainant. When there is heavy cyclone and rain pour the complainant must have suffered further loss due to damage caused to his house and other belongings and to set right, sufficient time must have been taken for him. Thereafter he approached District Legal Services Authority and the matter was closed on 16.9.2009. According to Ex.A.15 order of District Legal Services Authority, one P.S.R.K. Prasad, Advocate was appointed to file case on behalf of the complainant. But as per the complainant the said advocate did not file any complaint and having waiting for sometime the complainant filed the present complaint on 27.12.2010. In these circumstances the delay may be condoned. So, the claim cannot be rejected on account of delay. She gave an order
Allowing the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.69,970/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.12.2010 i.e., date of the complaint till payment and further to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The amounts awarded above shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order.
16. On giving different orders by the District Forum, Machilipatnam the Member FAC President referred the matter to the State Commission for proper decision in the said complaint. The Hon’ble State Commission referred this complaint to this Forum to take decision as per law. The C.C. is renumbered as 148/2014. This Forum issued notices to both the parties and heard the arguments.
17. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in
repudiating the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief as prayed?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
18. On perusing the material on hand the complainant’s claim is based on Ex.B.1 insurance policy. Ex.A.19 copy of bank pass book shows the deduction of Rs.278/- towards insurance premium on 2.6.2006. It is an admitted fact that there was heavy damages caused due to Ogni cyclone in coastal area on 30.10.2006. Ex.A.13 copies of newspaper clippings reveals that there was wide spread damage caused to the coastal area in and around Machilipatnam in the cyclone of 2006. The complainant made a claim through his letter dated 7.11.2006 under Ex.A.1 the original of claim stating that he suffered loss to an extent of Rs.81,200/- due to cyclone on 30.10.2006 and it was rain fall for five days. The paper clippings reveals that the residents of Guduru, Kalpalam, Mallavolu and Polavaram were shifted to rehabilitation centers as water entered into the houses and the lives of the weavers came into troubles. It is also mentioned that in Mallavolu and other villages the looms were submerged in the rain water. The complainant is the resident of Mallavolu which was effected by the cyclone. As per statement of the complainant a surveyor came to him and inspected the records and also damages to the material. Basing on that the surveyor conducted survey on 6.12.2006. Ex.A.8 shows the quantum of 80 bundles was brought on 24.5.2006 to 4.9.2006 and the balance was shown as 80 bundles. The amount of yarn purchased is noted in Ex.A.6 as Rs.84,970/-. The complainant says in his letter dated 10.11.2006 that the value of the stock he had with him on that days was Rs.15,000/-. When the amount is deducted from the total value of yarn stocked by the complainant the loss comes to Rs.84,970/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.69,970/- as per Ex.B.3 the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.14,641/-. The assessment of the surveyor was based on the stock remained with the complainant after distribution to other weavers and damage caused to such stock. When the complainant was in the practice of giving yarn to other weaving workers on payment of wages the loss of yarn at their looms is also the loss caused to the complainant. Therefore the loss caused cannot be estimated to Rs.15,000/- only. The opposite party admits that the complainant had taken the insurance policy belongs to M/s Sri Chandrasekhar Hand loom productions for the first time in the year, 2002 the claim is arisen in the year, 2006 renewal policy and the insurance for fire coverage with other allied perils and he was issued a standard fire and special perils policy covering the stock of yarn kept lying at D.No.6/70, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandal. The opposite party admits that there was a cyclone on 30.10.2006 which resulted the damage of the stock yarn insured but states that as per the survey report, the loss was not payable because there was no evidence of flood effected symptoms in the insured premises, and the stock damage at insured premises. The opposite party states that as per the policy condition (Gen.Exclusion No.13) the claim is not payable as loss said to have been occurred elsewhere, other than the insured’s premises mentioned in the policy and the surveyor inspected the premises of the complainant and submitted his survey report that the stock loss which was declared by the insured was outside weavers does not fall under the purview of policy and the complainant is entitled for Rs.4,641/- as per the surveyor report and calculation. Ex.B.1 the photocopy of insurance policy showing Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (material damage) containing four pages. Ex.B.1 page 3 shows the payment of the insured M/s Sri Chandra Sekhara Hand Loom clearly, the nature of the policy “cloth processing units outside the complex/compound of the textile mills and cloth processing units which are not owned by the textile mills but are situated within the textile mills complex/compound”. That means cloth processing units outside the complex/compound of the textile mills covers the material damage. Here the material of the complainant which was kept in outside cloth processing units comes under coverage. And cloth processing units which are not owned by the textile mills but are situated within the textile mills complex/compound means that the material of outside processing units which are kept within the textile mills compound/complex of the complainant also comes coverage under this policy. But the second one is immaterial in this case. The bills of the material purchased by the complainant shows that he purchased those looms for Rs.84,970/- and he kept some looms with him and gave other looms to the weavers for weaving cloths. When the value of the power looms kept with the complainant amounts to Rs.15,000/- the remaining worth of the looms value is Rs.69,970/-. In Ex.B.2 copy of insurance surveyor and loss assessor report Point III, the insured, modus operandi clearly mentioned the insured name M/s Chandrasekhara Handloom Production & Trading Company established in the year 1998. “Modus operandi” of the firm is to purchase yarn, zari and art silk from outside and weaving them to make handloom product like sarees or to supply the materials to outside weavers so as to obtain finished product from them by paying the proper mazuri to them and to sell the handloom products to wholesale shops. It is very clear about the nature of the policy. Ex.B.1 copy of the standard fire & special perils policy (material damage) point VI policy clearly shows the material damage of the insured is also covered under storm, cyclone, typhoon tempest, Hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation and in the present case the damage of the insured material cause is ‘Ogni’ a cyclone. The opposite party raised point 13 in the Ex.B.1 and the general exclusion, which is related to the shifting of the machinery and equipment, which point is not relate to the present case.
19. The opposite party had given a reply dated 5.1.2007 under Ex.A.16 stating that the file of the complainant was closed as he has not complied with required papers and documents in spite of letters and reminders and as there is no evidence to ascertain the cost of loss, when a surveyor himself had gone to the complainant it would be absurd to say that the complainant did not comply with the required papers. Ex.A.1 dated 7.11.2006 clearly shows the complaint was given to opposite party but the surveyor made report on 6.12.2006. Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 clearly shows the nature of the insurance policy and the surveyor of the insurance had full knowledge of insured policy and he had to inspected the places where the yarn material was distributed to the other persons named by the insured person. So, the surveyor failed to give his report as per Ex.B.1 endorsement. Therefore the defence taken by the insurance company through its letter under Ex.A.16 cannot be accepted.
20. The opposite party says that after lapse of 3 and half years the complaint was filed before the Forum is not tenable under limitation as the repudiation letter by the opposite party was on 5.1.2007 to the complainant. Later the complainant filed the complaint on 27.10.2010 after 3 and half years and it is bad by limitation. The repudiation of the claim was on 5.1.2007 vide Ex.A.16 and it was not known when this letter was served on the complainant. When there is heavy cyclone and rainfall the complainant must have suffered further loss due to damage caused to his house and other belongings. It is not uncommon for him to get the matter set right and sufficient time must have been taken for it. Thereafter he approached District Legal Services Authority and the matter was closed on 16.9.2009. As per Ex.A.15 order of District Legal Services Authority an advocate was referred to file case on behalf of the complainant. But as per the complainant the said advocate did not make any complaint. So having waiting for sometime the complainant filed the present complaint on 27.12.2010. In these circumstances we feel the delay may be condoned. So the claim cannot be rejected on account of delay. As per General Exclusions 1 (b) the first 5% of each and every loss subject to a minimum of Rs.10,000/- arising out of other perils in respect of which the insured is indemnified by this policy. The excess shall apply per event per insured. As per this clause Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted from Rs.69,970/- and the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.59,970/-.
21. In view of the above discussions we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not paying the amount of loss as per Ex.B.1 endorsement. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of the damaged material to the complainant as per endorsement of Ex.B.1 and the complainant is entitled to get the same from the opposite party. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT NO.3:-
22. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.59,970/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiating the claim of the complainant i.e., 5.1.2007 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing delay in payment of loss of material and mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Rest of the claims of the complainant are dismissed. Time for compliance one month.
Typewritten by Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 21st day of October, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 B.Naga Suryanarayana D.W.1 K.Vara Prasada Rao
1st Complainant Administrative Officer
(by affidavit) opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 07.11.2006 Photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the
opposite party.
Ex.A.2 10.11.2006 Photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the
opposite party containing three sheets.
Ex.A.3 01.02.2007 Photocopy of certificate issued by Secretary, Grama
Sachavalayam, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandalam.
Ex.A.4 . . Photocopies of Credit Bill, Bearing No.7/1, issued by
Chunduru Obaiah Company, Chirala; Bill No.132YA issued by Sri Kameswara Textiles, Peddapuram, East Godavri District: Bill No.3/17 dated 19.7.2006 issued by Chunduru Obaiah Company, Chirala; Bill dated 4.9.2006 issued by Chunduru Obaiah Company, Chirala.
Ex.A.5 . . Photocopies (two pages) showing certain accounts.
Ex.A.6 . . Photocopy of bill sheet showing No.3 for a sum of Rs.84,970/-.
Ex.A.7 . . Photocopy of account sheet.
Ex.A.8 . . Photocopy of Form D-1 Certificate of registration issued by Commercial Taxes Department.
Ex.A.9 31.05.2004 Photocopy of Form – AA9 acknowledgement cum demand notice refund order issued by Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer, Machilipatnam (Rural).
Ex.A10 02.12.2006 Photocopy of to whomsoever it may concern certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh
Commercial Taxes Department.
Ex.A.11 . . Photocopy of certificate issued in the name of the complainant by Commissioner of Industries, Government
of A.P. and Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council, Hyderabad.
Ex.A.12 05.01.2007 Photocopy of letter, bearing No.0631388, issued by National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata to M/s Sree
Chandra Sekhara Handloom Production Trading Company, Mallavolu, Guduru, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.A.13 . . Photocopy of newspaper clipping, dated 31st October, 2006 published in Andhra Jyothi, Krishna.
Ex.A.14 16.09.2009 Photocopy of Docket Order in PLC No.212/2009 passed by Lok Adalat Bench, Machilipatnam.
Ex.A.15 05.10.2009 Photocopy of proceedings of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Ex.A.16 05.01.2007 Photocopy of letter addressed by National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata to M/s Sree Chandra Sekhara
Handloom Production & Trading Company, Mallavolu, Guduru.
Ex.A.17 . . Photocopies of Household card family members details; newspaper clippings of two sheets.
Ex.A.18 . . Photocopy of letter addressed by Sri Chandrasekhara Handloom Production & Trading Company, Mallavolu,
Guduru Mandalam, Krishna District along with one paper clippling.
Ex.A.19 . . Photocopy of statement of account.
Ex.A.20 10.09.2009 Photocopy of letter addressed by National Insurance Company Limited, Machilipatnam, to the Secretary cum
Senior Civil Judge, DLSA, Nyaya Seva Sadan, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Ex.A.21 . . Photocopy of notice in PLA No.212/2009 issued by District Legal Services Authority, Machilipatnam;
along with Certificate, dated 1.2.2007.
Ex.A.22 . . Photocopy of application submitted by the complainant to District Legal Services Authority, Machilipatnam.
or the opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 . . Photocopy of National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata showing standard fire and special perils policy
(material damage) containing four pages; duplicate schedule (containing two pages).
Ex.B.2 01.01.2007 Copy of Handloom stock cyclone loss survey report of Sri T.Ramesh Babu, DME, LIISA, Insurance Surveyor & Loss
Assessor, Machilipatnam containing six pages.
Ex.B.3 05.01.2007Photocopy of letter addressed by the National InsuranceCompany Ltd., Kolkata to M/s Sree Chandra Sekhara
Handloom Production & Trading Company, Mallavolu, Guduru Mandal.
Ex.B.4 17.07.2009 Photocopy of letter addressed by Sri Chandrasekhara Handloom Production & Trading Co., the complainant,
Mallavolu, Guduru Mandalam, Krishna District to the Manager, National Insurance Company.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
