Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/176

S.H.SHABEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN

31 Jul 2013

ORDER

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram
 
First Appeal No. A/12/176
(Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2011 in Case No. CC/11/47 of District Palakkad)
 
1. S.H.SHABEER
8/944,OPP.SITHARAM MOTORS,NH47,KADAMCODE
PALAKKAD
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
SHOBHA.T.S.M.COMPLEX,R.S.ROAD,TOWN RAILWAY STATION
PAKKAD
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER
  SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

                        APPEAL NOS.121/12, 122/12, 176/12 & 177/12

                     COMMON JUDGMENT DATED:31.07.2013

 

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADASNADAR          --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO.121/12

 

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Sobha TSM Complex

R.S.Road, Opp Town Railway Station,

Palakkad. Reptd by its                                   --  APPELLANT

Divisional Manager,

Ulloor, Triandrum,

  (By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

 

                    Vs.

 

Sunil Jain,

S/o Mahavir Chand, Proprietor,           --  RESPONDENT

Thushar Flooring Selection,

Opp.Sitharam Motors, N.H 47, Kadamkode,

Karingarapully, Palakkad.

     (By Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran & Ors.)

 

APPEAL NO.  122/12

 

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Sobha TSM Complex

R.S.Road, Opp Town Railway Station,

Palakkad. Reptd by its                                   --  APPELLANT

Divisional Manager,

Ulloor, Triandrum,

  (By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

                  

                             Vs.

 

S.H.Shabeer, S/o Sahid Abdul Khadher

8/944, Opp.Sitharam Motors,                              --  RESPONDENT

NH47, Kadamkode,

Karingarapully, Palakkad.

     (By Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran & Ors.)

 

APPEAL NO.176/12

 

S.H.Shabeer, S/o Sahid Abdul Khadher

8/944, Opp.Sitharam Motors,

NH47, Kadamkode,                                             --  APPELLANT

Karingarapully, Palakkad.

     (By Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran & Ors.)

            

Vs.

 

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Sobha TSM Complex

R.S.Road, Opp Town Railway Station,

Palakkad. Reptd by its                                          --   RESPONDENT

Divisional Manager,

Ulloor, Triandrum,

  (By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

 

 

APPEAL NO.177/12

 

Sunil Jain,

S/o Mahavir Chand, Proprietor,                     --  APPELLANT

Thushar Flooring Selection,

Opp.Sitharam Motors, N.H 47, Kadamkode,

Karingarapully, Palakkad.

     (By Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran & Ors.)

 

                             VS.

 

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Sobha TSM Complex

R.S.Road, Opp Town Railway Station,

Palakkad. Reptd by its                                          --   RESPONDENT

Divisional Manager,

Ulloor, Triandrum,

  (By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

 

 

                                       COMMON JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

          In these appeals the orders of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.Nos.47/11 & 48/11 are challenged  both by the complainant and opposite party.     The complainant in CC.No.4711 is the owner of the building bearing door No.8/944 situated by the side of N.H 47 at Karingarapully Kadamkode in Palakkad Taluk.  The said building was let out to the complainant in CC 48/11  for the purpose of conducting business in the name Tushar Flooring Selections.  The complainant in CC.47/11 had availed a Standard Fire and Special Peril insurance policy from  the opposite party to cover the risks to his building for the period from 2.7.09 to 1.7.10.  The complainant in CC.48/11 had also availed a standard fire and special peril insurance policy from the same opposite party to cover the  risks to his  trading materials such as marble slabs and tiles, granite slabs and tiles, tiles, ceramic wash basins etc. for the period from 31.10.09 to 30.10.10.  The identical allegations in these complaints are that on 14.6.10 due to heavy wind and rainfall, the insured building got damaged.  The insured stock in trade also got damaged.   Immediately intimation was given to the opposite party regarding the damage to the building as well as the trading materials.  But the opposite party did not bother to inspect the property and the stock in trade for assessing the damage.   Therefore, the complainant again requested the opposite party to do the needful at the earliest.   Inspite of repeated requests, the surveyor visited the premises only on 23.6.10.  As a result of heavy wind and rain fall  a  portion of the store room fell down and the steel shed and compound wall were damaged.  The complainant in CC.47/11 assessed his loss at Rs.1.63 lakhs and claimed compensation of Rs.213,000/-.  It appears that after inspection  of the stock in trade the  insurance   surveyor requested the  complainant in CC.48/11 to furnish records such as purchase bills for damaged items, stock statement given  to the bank and balance sheet and profit and loss statement for the relevant year.  It is alleged by the complainant   in CC.48/11 that he had forwarded all such documents.  Based on his own assessment, the complainant in CC.48/11 claimed that he sustained a loss of Rs.7.33 lakhs due to damage to the insured articles.  He claimed a compensation of Rs.833,000/- from the opposite party/insurance company. 

2. In  both the complaints, it is alleged that without conducting proper enquiry, the complainants were told that the opposite party  was not in a position to entertain the claims and accordingly closed both the claims.  Thereby, the opposite party has caused hardship and mental agony to the complainants.  The complainant in CC.47/11 has claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,13,000/- and the complainant in CC.48/11 has claimed a total compensation of Rs.8.33 lakhs.

 

3. The opposite party/ oriental Insurance company filed version in both   complaints raising identical contentions.  They admitted that the complainants had availed policy as alleged.  But denied the allegation that they had not bothered to inspect the property for assessing the damage despite intimation.  They contended that it is incorrect to say that the surveyor had visited the premises only on 23.6.10.  The insurance surveyor deputed by the opposite party inspected the  premises on 15.6.10 and 22.6.10.  The opposite party denied the allegation that due to heavy rain and wind a portion of the storeroom   fell down and the complainant in CC.47/11 sustained loss of Rs.1.63 lakhs and the complainant in the other case sustained loss of Rs.7.33 lakhs to his stored articles.  The insured building is a shed made of corrugated GI sheet roofing over steel trusses.  The compound wall is constructed with cement hollow blocks in cement mortar  on the rear side and welded  steel mesh over RCC plinth in the front side.  The surveyor found that the stack of vitrified tiles and ceramic tiles had fallen over the pillar steel channel and the channel bent  and the roof had sagged.  The surveyor did not notice any damage to other buildings and trees nearby.  According to the surveyor due to heavy rain, filled mud had become wet and floor sunk un-evenly.  The stack of floor tiles lost balance and fell over the pillars of the shed and the pillars got bent.      The mud below the plinth being in the north western side of the shed had fallen due to erosion of soil in the heavy rain.  The surveyor further found that had there been heavy wind   the  roof sheets would have blown off.  So the surveyor rightly found that the damages due to the wind and rain were not due to any insured peril and as such the claim was inadmissible.  As per policy conditions loss destruction or damage directly caused by subsidence of part of the site on which the property stands or land slide    excluding the settlement or movement of made up ground is   covered.  Therefore, the claim was rightly rejected by the opposite party and there was no deficiency in service.

 

4. The Forum recorded separate evidence in the complaints.   In CC 47/11 the complainant gave evidence as PW1.  Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant.  The insurance surveyor was examined on the side of the opposite party as DW1.  Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party.  In CC.48/11 both parties filed affidavit.  Exts.A1 & A2 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The same insurance surveyor was examined as DW1 on the side of the opposite party.  Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

 

5. The forum allowed both the complaints in part.  In CC.47/11 the forum held that since at the time of issuing policy the opposite party had not raised any objection to the stability of the floor of the building and no evidence was produced by them that the proximate cause of damage was settling of the filled floor mud, the complainant was entitled to claim   damages of Rs.50285/- assessed by the surveyor.  In CC.48/11 the forum held that there was no evidence as to the actual quantum of damage sustained by the complainant.  But however allowed a compensation of Rs.1 lakh,   Rs..10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs.

 

6. The orders of the forum are challenged both by the complainants and the opposite parties. On the facts disclosed above  the only disputed question is whether Ext.B3 policy in both complaints covers the alleged or proved peril and hence these appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

 

7. The complainant in CC.47/11 is the owner of the building which was let out to the complainant in the other case for conducting business in flooring materials such as marble slabs,   tiles, granite slabs and tiles ceramic wash basins etc.  Damages were allegedly sustained to both building and the stock in trade as a result of a common peril on 14.6.10.  The common peril alleged in both complaints is that there was heavy rainfall and   wind on 14.6.10.   As a result both building and the stock in trade got damaged.   Both   claims were repudiated by the insurance company for identical reasons based on the surveyors report.  The surveyor is examined by the opposite party in both complaints.   The surveyors report dated 22.3.11 is marked as Ext.B2.  As per the surveyors report that  there was heavy rain on the relevant date was admitted.  The finding was that due to heavy rain the filled mud became wet and the floor        sank unevently.   The stack  of floor tiles lost balance and fell over the pillars of the shed and the pillars got bent.  The damage to the building and stock happened in the above manner.  In support of his conclusions the surveyor pointed out that, had there been storm there would have been damages to the buildings or trees in the nearby area.   No such damage was found.  Had there been heavy wind the roof sheets of the building would have blown off.  That  also did not happen.  So based on the surveyors  report the opposite party concluded that no insured peril had operated to cause damage.  It was accordingly the claims were rejected.  The opposite party produced   standard fire and special perils policy (material damage) issued to both complainants as Ext.B3.  The rejection was based on Clause 8 of the policy which deals with subsidence and lanslide  including rock slide.   As per clause 8  loss destruction or damage directly caused by  subsidence of part of the site on which the property stands or land slide excluding among other things,  the settlement or movement of made up ground and normal cracking, settlement or bedding down of new structures is covered.  During the pendency of this appeal as per the summons of this Commission the meteorological department produced the rain fall register for 2010    In the Palakkad District, from the entries relating to 13.10.10 & 14.6.19  it Can be seen that a rain fall of 47.8 mm and 47.4 mm were recorded on the said days in the area.  It appears that in the district by and large there was heavy rainfall.  Heavy rain fall need not   necessarily be accompanied by wind  and really there  is no evidence to indicate that there was storm in the area on the relevant day.  So, the conclusions of the surveyor appear to be acceptable.   The forum also did not arrive at a   different conclusion, but  merely stated that at the time of issuing insurance policy  opposite party  had not raised objection to the stability of the floor of the building of the complainant in CC.47/11 and that opposite party produced no documentary evidence to show     that the  proximate cause of damage was due to settling of the filled floor mud.    The question directly raised was that subsidence of filled up land is not at all covered by the policy.  In view of that contention  there was no scope for raising any objection at the time of issuing the policy as to the stability of the floor.  The forum awarded compensation  in OP.47/11 only in the  “interests of justice” which the forum was not entitled to do in the face of a clear provision in Ext.B3 policy.  In CC.48/11 the forum clearly found that there was lack of evidence as to the extent of damage sustained to the complainant therein.   Apart from this the alleged peril was not clearly covered by Ext.B3 policy.   However, the forum awarded  compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony but lost sight of the fact that in a contract of insurance, the parties are bound but the terms of the contract.    I had referred  to the provisions in Ext.B3 policy and the exclusion made therein which clearly  excludes subsidence of land due to settlement or movement of made up ground.  Only loss, destruction or damage caused by subsidence of part of the site on which property stands or land slide is covered by the policy.    That subsidence must be  due to  natural causes like earth quake.  No such event happened.   It is a clear case where the floor subsided due to heavy rain and settlement of   made up ground.  Therefore, the insurance company rightly rejected the claims of the complainants.  In such a situation no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company can be found.  It follows that the appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to be allowed and the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

 

In the result appeals 176/12 and 177/12 are  dismissed and appeal Nos.121/12 & 122/12 are allowed.  The orders of the CDRF, Palakkad in CC.Nos.47/11 and 48/11 dated 16.3.11 are set aside and both complaints are dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to   bear their respective costs in these appeals.

 

 

 K.CHANDRADAS NADAR          --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SL

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ SRI. V. V. JOSE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.