SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sri. M.J. Mathew has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that he is running a business stationery at Mullackal, Alappuzha under the name and style M/s. Lovely Stores. The opposite party has insured the business and stock of the complainant for the period from 4.6.2003 to 3.6.2004 under standard Fire and Special Perils Policy by receiving on premium of Rs.972/- since the year 1998. Thus the opposite party is under an obligation to indemnify him for the loss sustained to him during the period covered by the policy. On 5.4.2004 there happened to be a storm followed by lightening and heavy rain at Alappuzha. Due to the said peril a breach of banian tree standing in front of the complainant’s shop room on its south eastern corner broke down on the complainant’s shop room at about 11.45 p.m. causing total damages to the building. On 6.4.2004 the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party. Some officials of the opposite party visited the shop and directed the complainant to get the roof of the building reconstructed by inviting quotations and to submit the bill from the Contractor through whom the work is carried out. The work was carried out through the contractor and an amount of Rs.32,100/- was paid to him towards repair charges. On 30.6.2004 the complainant submitted the receipt issued by the contractor and requested the opposite party to reimburse the amount. But the complainant received a letter from the opposite party stating the survey reports confirm that the cause of damage is due to impact resulted from the broken portion of tree trunk which beyond the scope of standard. Fire and special peril policy and so the claim lodged and the prayers are filed award as no claim. Hence this complaint filed. <br /> 2. Notices were issued to the opposite party. Then they are appeared and filed version which is stating that, on receipt of the claim of the complainant a surveyor was appointed. He inspected the spot and assessed the damages and submitted his report. In his report, it is stated that the damage caused to the building is due to fall of a trunk of a tree stands nearby. The loss caused to the building is not due to any direct result of the perils stated in the policy and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> 4. On the side of the complainant PW1 to PW4 were examined and 10 documents produced which were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Documents produced by PW4 were marked as X1 to X3. On the side of the opposite party RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked.<br /> 5. The allegations of the complainant is that the branch of the banian tree fell on his shop room due to natural calamity like lightening , thunder and storm and due to the impact of such storm the branch of the tree broke and fell down on the shop room of the insured. The averments of the complainant the said storm happened in the night of 5.4.2004. But there is nothing produce before the Forum to show that such a calamity had happened on 5.4.2004. In the relevant portion of cross examination of PW1, “Imdpw agbpw aqe-amWv acw HSnªp hoW-sXp ImWn-bv¡p--Xn\v tcJ-sbmpw lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. Av Fsâ IS-bpsS AÃmsX thsdbpw \mi-\-jvS§Ä D­mbn-«p-­v. tamln\n F IS-bpsS HmSp-Ifpw joäp-Ifpw ]dp t]mbn. koam ^pSv shb-dnsâ HmSp-IÄ ]dp t]mbn. tZhn tÌmgvkv, _me³ & Co. XpS-§nb IS-IÄ¡pw \mi-§Ä hp.” But the complainant never dared to put any one of them to sight as a witness. There is no evidence to show that a storm had occurred during the night of 5.4.04. More over the damage caused due to the fall of a tree branch is not covered under the standard Fire and Special peril policy. We perused the pleadings and evidence. The case of the opposite party is more probable than the case of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SMT. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> APPENDIX:- <br /> Evidence of the complainant:- <br /> PW1 - M.J. Mathew (Witness) <br /> PW2 - (CW1) – Vimala Devi (Witness)<br /> PW3 - Georgekutty (Witness)<br /> PW4 - D.G. Krishnankutty (Witness)<br /> CW1 - Vimala Devi (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Policy schedule - 0769744<br /> Ext.A2 - Copy of the letter dated 6.4.2004<br /> Ext.A3 - Statement dated 30.6.2004<br /> Ext.A4 - Letter dated 14.3.2005<br /> Ext.A5 - Mahazor <br /> Ext.A6 - Policy schedule - 0765739<br /> Ext.A7 - Policy schedule – 0379363<br /> Ext.A8 - Policy dated 22.5.2000<br /> Ext.A9 - Fire Policy – A<br /> Ext.A10 - Policy conditions<br /> Ext.X1 - Photo Copy of the General diary<br /> Ext.X2 - Kerala Fire Force – appendix (Photo copy)<br /> Ext.X3 - Daily Travel Explanation (Photo copy)<br /> Evidence of the opposite party:- <br /> RW1 - N.R. Parameswaran (Witness)<br /> RW2 - Mohan Chandran.M. (Witness)<br /> Ext.B1 - Photo Copy of the Policy Schedule <br /> Ext.B2 - Fire Policy conditions<br /> Ext.B3 - Fire Insurance claim form<br /> Ext.B4 - Letter dated 14.3.2005<br /> Ext.B5 - Survey Report dated 8.2.2005<br /> Ext.B6 - Letter, statement and photos <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.<br /> Typed by:-pr/-<br /> Compared by:-<br /> <br />