DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 22nd day of September 2010 .
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
C.C.No.139/2009 Sebastian S/o. Augustine Narikkunnel House Chittur (P.O) Agali Village Mannarkkad Taluk Palakkad - Complainant (Adv. A. Chenthamarakshan) Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd Public Sector Branch Kottarathil Building New Block, Palayam Thiruvananthapuram - Opposite party (Adv. K.V. Sujith) O R D E R
By Smt. Seena.H, President
Complaint in brief: Complainant availed a housing loan under the Maithry Housing scheme from the Mannarkkad Branch of the State Housing Board and constructed a house. The house was insured for Rs.30,000/- with the Opposite party vide Policy No.4776050500712 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. That in the year 2002 the said house was destroyed in heavy rain. Even though matter was intimated and amount claimed, Opposite party did not take any positive steps to settle the claim.
The contentions put forth by the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. Further submitted that no claim form or intimation was submitted to opposite party either by the complainant or the housing board. The opposite party received a letter dated 14/12/2004 from the complainant and in response to that necessary follow ups were made. Opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence complaint may be dismissed. - 2 - Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Exhibit A1 to A2 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite party.
Issues for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issues 1 & 2 The specific case of the complainant is that his house which was insured with the opposite party was destroyed by rain in the year 2002. Opposite party contented that they did not receive intimation regarding the incident either from the complainant or the housing board. It is admitted by the opposite party that they received a letter from the complainant dated 14/12/2004.
Heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused relevant documents on record.
It is seen that the opposite party has not specifically denied the policy. Complainant has stated in the affidavit that the matter was immediately informed and amount was demanded to the opposite party. Further submitted that he has contacted the Mannarkkad Branch and Palakkad Divisional Office of the Opposite party several times, correspondence between the parties were going on in the year 2004 and 2005. It is settled position that the cause of action runs from the date of repudiation of the claim. Here opposite party has not repudiated the claim and hence there is no limitation in this case.
Again we find that even though opposite party has denied receipt of any intimations by the complainant, has admitted receipt of the letter dated 14/12/2004 intimating the alleged incident. The alleged incident is in the year 2002. No proper explanation is forth coming on the side of the opposite party for not deputing any surveyor even at that belated stage. Even after filing of the complaint also opposite party has not taken any steps to assess true facts. Complainant is a layman coming from a Socially and educationally backward village called Agali. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the say of the - 3 - complainant that he has intimated the fact to opposite party. It is also beyond reason to believe that a person who has lost his residing house will in any way delay intimation regarding the incident.
From the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we find opposite party grossly negligent in dealing with the case of the complainant. Opposite party ought to have appoint a surveyor to assess loss or intimate the complainant if the mode of claiming the insurance amount is in any way improper. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. Since there is no evidence regarding loss suffered by the complainant we find it proper to settle the claim on non-standard basis.
In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant 75% of the sum assured (Rs.30,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint to the date of order. An amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2010
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX Date of filing: 13/10/2009 Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1series – Letter dated 14/12/2004
- 4 - Ext. A2 – Letter dated 06/12/2005
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits
Nil Costs - Partly allowed. Rs.1,000/-
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT | | 
