IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 18th day of November, 2021
Filed on 08.10.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.247/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Mathew Pramod 1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance
S/o Samuel.K.O Co. Ltd, Corporate Accident & Health
Ottathengil House Department, Vishranthi Melaram
Kuttemperoor.P.O Towers, No-2/3/19
Mannar Village Rajiv Gandi Salai(OMR)
Chengannur Taluk Karapakkam, Chennai-600097
Alappuzha (Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
Rep by his Power of Attorney 2. The Branch Manager
Holder – Sri. Pradeep Cherian Sundaram BNP Paridas Home
Ottathengil House Finance Ltd, 2nd Floor, Centre Point
-do- -do- Near Post Office, KP Raod
Kayamkulam-690502
(Adv. Ramjith.P) (Adv.Jayan .C.Das)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Material averments in briefly stated are as follows:-
Complainant is a resident of Mannar Village, Chengannur Taluk and working abroad. This complaint filed through his Power of Attorney, his brother Pradeep Cherian. In the year 2014 the complainant and his mother Kunjumol as co-borrower had availed a Housing loan from 2nd opposite party for the construction of a house and the said proposed house which was constructed was insured with the 1st opposite party. The said insurance policy having No.DHA0019983000100. The complainant had taken the said policy from 1st opposite party under the instruction and insists of 2nd opposite party which is a sister concern of 1st opposite party in which its terms covers the risks including fire, earthquake and floods in respect to the proposed house constructed by complainant.
The complainant had remitted the premium. The said house which was constructed and covered under the terms of policy is situated at Alappuzha district, Chengannur Taluk, Mannar village and due to the heavy flood affected on that location from 16/8/2018 to 27/8/2018 the above said residential house covered under the policy was under water locked and due to heavy flow of water and by it pressure affected the property and the house, which resulted in heavy damage to the house and affected the life and strength of the same residential building.
Due to that flood it was notified that the damage caused to the building is at about 74% by the Government official. To get redress the damages caused to the house, it cost Rs.8,22,275/- as per the estimation of an expert engineers for which the complainant had made a request before the 1st opposite party with a claim of Rs.8,22,275/-. As per claim made by the complainant an expert had visited the scheduled house and property and made an observation that there was no water entry to the house and the damages are not due to the flood and are due to the terrestrial and geographical condition and rejected the claim on 10/10/2018 and was intimated to the complainant on 12/10/2018.
The observations made by the surveyor who was employed for and on behalf of the opposite party is absolutely false and are against the facts. The report made by the surveyor is to protect the opposite parties and is biased at the insists of them. The act of the opposite parties is to defraud the complainant and is against terms and condition of their service promised toward the complainant. 1st opposite party had obligation to indemnity the loss caused to the complaint due to the flood which effected the insured property. They had violated the same and had made biased and fraudulent reports by themselves to get reject the claim raised by the complainant.
On that score a demand notice was issued to the opposite parties through an advocate on 22/11/2018 for the same. But the opposite parties never turn up to get redress the grievances. On that course the complainant had made a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Ernakulam against the same. But there also no evidence were taken and accepting the plea of opposite parties the claim was rejected and was get disposed. The said decision was unilateral and against the fact and laws. Thereafter the complainant filed this complaint.
Though the opposite parties 1 and2 entered appearance after accepting notice from this Commission they did not filed any version in response to the complaint. The PW1 brother and Power Attorney Holder of the complainant filed affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A9. PW2 is the mother of the complainant. She also filed affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A10.
PW3 is the B-Grade KBR Supervisor, She prepared Ext.A4 it is the photocopy of the estimate prepared by the PW3. The original marked as Ext.X1.
PW4 is the Mannar Panchayath Secretary examined in chief by the counsel appearing for complainant and got marked Ext.X2 and X3. Ext.X2 is the report prepared the damage of the building disputed in this complaint owned by PW2 and Ext.X3 is the list of beneficiaries eligible to government aid who are affected damage in the flood 2018 referred to Tahasiladar, Chengannur
Points to be considered are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize Rs.8,22,275/- from opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties?
4. Reliefs and cost?
Point No. 1 to 3:-
The complainant’s case is that he along with his mother, PW2 had availed a housing loan from 2nd opposite party in the year 2014 and under the instruction and insists of the 2nd opposite party they had taken an insurance policy towards the proposed building constructed in the property owned by PW2 as per Ext.A10 sales deed.
While so during 2018 flood the building insured was partially damaged and it was reported by PW4 in Ext.X2 andX3 as 60-74% damage. Further it was estimated by PW3, the amount of damage for Rs.8,22,275/- on 12/9/2018. On the basis of the said damage the complainant preferred application to 1st opposite party for getting insurance claim as per Ext.A9 deal confirmation issued by 1st opposite party in which clause 3 offered the risk covered includes fire, earthquake and floods for the loan tenor.
The complainant alleged that the 1st opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on the basis of the observations made by their surveyor stating that there were some cracks on the building, these were not related the flood peril but due to terrestrial condition of the earth and various geographical condition. Thereafter the complainant filed petition to Insurance Ombudsman seeking reliefs. According to the complainant there was not taken any evidence, but the claim was disposed off accepting the plea of opposite parties. Thereafter he filed this complaint for realizing Rs.8,22,275/- from the opposite parties and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alleging deficiency of service.
Though the opposite parties 1 and 2 were enter appeared through counsels no version seen filed resisting the complaint and did not contested the case when PW1 to PW4 were mounted in box. The unchallenged complaint, proof affidavit of PW1 and PW2, depositions of PW3 and PW4 coupled with Ext.A1 to A10 and Ext.X1 to X3 were proved the case of the complainant, hence we constrained to hold the view that the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party committed deficiency of service, thus the complainant is entitled to realize the amount shown in Ext.X1 ie, Rs. 8,22,275/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we fix Rs.10,000/- as compensation and the same also to be paid to the complainant by 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party.
Point No.4:-
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part.
1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.8,22,275/-(Rupees Eight lakh twenty two thousand two hundred and seventy five only) to the complainant jointly and severally.
2. Complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation from opposite parties 1 and 2.
3. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings from opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 18th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Pradeep Kurian(Witness)
PW2 - Kunjumol Samuel(Witness)
PW3 - Roshni Venus.R(witness)
PW4 - Biju.K.P(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Certificate issued by Village Officer,Mannar
Ext.A2 - Letter dtd. 10/10/2018
Ext.A3 - Copy of Silent features of Insurance policy dtd. 7/11/2014
Ext.A4 - Copy of detailed estimate
Ext.A5 - Report regarding the damages to the insured house published by the Government of Kerala
Ext.A6 - Power of Attorney dtd. 30-10-2018
Ext.A7 - Lawyers notice dtd. 22/10/2018
Ext.A8 - Postal Receipt det. 22-10-2018
Ext.A9 - Order from the office of Insurance Ombudsman
Ext.A10 - Copy of deal confirmation letter
Ext.X1 - Original Detailed Estimate
Ext.X2 - Report.
Ext.X3 - Appeal Petition Report.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
