KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL: 983/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 14-09-2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd floor, East Fort Complex, : APPELLANT Palakkad. (By Adv:Sri.Saji Isaac.K.J) Vs. 1. P.Rangaswamy, Proprietor, Kumaran Rice Mill, Kolayakkad, Pudussery.P.O, Palakkad. (R1 by Adv:Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha) : RESPONDENTS 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travencore, Pudussery, Palakkad. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.331/01 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to honour the claim of the complainant treating the coverage for the entire premises including the building and the stock, within one month failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest at 8% per annum from the date of the order till realization of the claim amount and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Rice Mill of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. It is alleged that during the policy period due to heavy wind, lightning and rain considerable damages was caused to the building and stock etc. The matter was immediately intimated to the appellant and the complainant with the help of Civil Engineer assessed in the damages also. The Surveyor of the opposite party did not assess the damages properly. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,22,000/-. 3. The 1st opposite party/appellant has contended that the Surveyor has properly assessed the loss and further that the building is not covered by the policy and hence the damages to the building is not covered by the policy. It is further contended that as per the bank clause in the policy the opposite party is bound to make payment to the 2nd opposite party/bank that had insured the plant and machinery of the Rice Mill. It is further contended that in full and final settlement of the claim Rs.20,000/- was paid to the 2nd opposite party towards the claim and that no further claim is liable to be entertained. 4. The 2nd opposite party/Bank has also filed version denying the allegation in the complaint that the bank has colluded with the 1st opposite party/insurer. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of DW1, Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3. 6. We find that the sole issue in dispute is with respect to whether the policy covered the building or whether the policy covered only the plant and machinery excluding the building. The right of the complainant in the matter cannot be disputed as the amounts to be paid as per the bank clause would have to be credited to the amount due from the complainant towards the loan amounts due to the 2nd opposite party/bank. In Ext.B2 survey report the surveyor has stated that the policy covered only plant and machinery and not the building. On an examination of Ext.B1 policy copy produced by the opposite parties we find that the sum insured is Rs.14,80,000/-. In the policy against the columns with respect to the building, stocking process, furniture fixtures etc and debris removal, the sum insured mentioned as Rs.7.lakhs and with respect to plant and machinery, other stocks, other items, additional expenses on rent, the amount mentioned is Rs.7,80,000/-. It is incomprehensible as to how it is contended that only plant and machinery is covered by Ext.B1 policy. On a perusal of Ext.B1 we find that there is no scope for the contention that only plant and machinery is covered by the policy. Hence we find that the contention of the opposite party/appellant that only plant and machinery and stock is covered and not the building has no merits at all. 7. It has also to be noted that the surveyor has not even assessed the damages caused to the building etc. although the complainant had claimed damages to the building. We find that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The order of the Forum is sustained. The appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER | 
