KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.57/10

JUDGMENT DATED 27.9.2011

PRESENT:

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                  :  MEMBER

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office, Sham Complex,

Mattanchery, Cochin.

Represented by its Divisional Manager,           :  APPELLANT

Divisional Office – 1,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Sri. Varkala B. Ravikumar)

Vs

P.V. Alexander

St. Mary’s Oil Mill, Post Box No.13,                   :  RESPONDENT

Development area, Aroor,

Alappuzha.

(By Adv. Sri. B.A. KrishnaKumar)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

          The order dated 14.9.09 of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.101/01 is challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

          2.      The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had insured his oil mill and its goods with the opposite party for the period from 13.6.98 to 12.6.99 and that due to the strike of the employees, the copra kept in the oil mill got damaged and though he had filed claim for damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the damage occurred in the insured premises would not fall within the purview of the policy.  It was also submitted that the claim was a belated one and the complainant had not moved any police case regarding the strike of the workers and hence the opposite parties submitted that there was no deficiency of service in repudiating the claim.

3.      The evidence consisted of the deposition of PW1, PW2, RW1 and RW2.  Exts. P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B5 (a) were marked on the side of the opposite party.

          4.      Heard both sides.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,40,000/- with interest cannot be allowed to sustain on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay compensation for any damage to stock or copra kept outside the godown and also that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the copra valuing Rs.3,50,000/-  was damaged due to the strike.  It was also argued that the Forum ought to have found that the complaint was not maintainable and further the complainant was not entitled for the payment claimed by him.

6.      The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted before us that the damage to the copra occurred due to the strike that happened in the premises of the complainant and the fact of strike had been conclusively proved by the deposition of PW2 coupled with document marked as Ext.P5. Inviting our attention to Ext.P5, the learned counsel submitted before us that the Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station reported that the workers of the complainant’s oil mill started the strike and the copra which was kept in the yard were completely got wet as the same could not be moved from the yard to any safe place due to the non-co-operation of the workers who were on strike.  The learned counsel has advanced the further contention that the policy covered the payment of damages or compensation for the property destroyed by strike and due to the malicious acts and in the instant case it was due to the malicious act of some workers that the copra got damaged and since the complainant has insured for Rs.3,50,000/-  he was entitled for the said amount after depreciation of Rs.10,000/- and he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.        

7.      On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records, we find that the complainant’s premises with goods in side   were insured with the opposite party and the incident occurred during the validity of the insurance policy.  The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the copra was kept in the open yard and hence the opposite party was not liable to compensate for the same since it was not kept inside the godown and that there was no convincing proof to show that there was a strike in the oil mill of the complainant.  On a perusal of the records, we are not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.  We find that Ext.P5 is sufficient proof to show that there was a strike in the complainant’s premises and   the copra was damaged in rain due to the non co-operation of the striking employees.  It is also found that PW2 is an independent witness who has testified that there was a strike in the premises of the complainant on 31.12.98 and that the copra belonging to the complainant was damaged in the rain.  We find that PW2 is a police official who had inquired about the strike and had reported about the strike.  We find that there is nothing to disbelieve the deposition of PW2 and also Ext.P5 issued by the S.I. of Police.

8.      The Forum below has ordered for the payment of Rs.3,40,000/- with 6 % interest.  But it is to be found that the surveyor has assessed that the damage will come to Rs.3,46,921/- only.  Hence it is our concerned view that the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,36,921/- after deducting the first loss of 10,000/-  as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complaint is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the above said amount from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  The order entitling the complainant for cost of Rs.1,000/- is sustained.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification that the opposite party/appellant is liable to pay Rs.3,36,921/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

          The office is directed to return the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER