BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 17th day of February, 2011
C.C.No 107/10
Between:
Sri Satya Traders represented by its Proprietor N.Sampath Kumar S/o N.Sreenivasulu Setty
D.No.13/241, Mandi Bazar, Kurnool - 518 001.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
1. Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
H.No.40/342 A, 1st floor,Tula complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool - 518 001.
2. State Bank of India Rep. its Branch Manager,
13/158, old town branch, Kurnool -518 001.
…OPPOSITE PARTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri. D. A. Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri. V.V. Krishnama Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C. No. 107/10
1. The complainant filed this case under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties for the payment of Rs.5,12,250/- towards stock damages with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of incident i.e., 02-10-2009 till the date of realization Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and the cost of the complaint.
2. It is a case of the complainant that he was running a business under the name Sri Satya Traders at 13/241, Mundy Bazaar, Kurnool. The opposite party No.2 is S.B.I., Old Town branch, Kurnool with whom the complainant was operating bank A/c bearing No. 10521488558. He availed loan with opposite party No.2 hypothecating his stocks. On 08-07-2009 the opposite party No.2 insured the stock of the complainant with opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.1,769/- as premium. The opposite party No.1 is National Insurance Company Limited represented by its Senior Branch Manager, issued a policy bearing No.551001/48/09/9800000056 in favour of the complainant covering the period of risk from 17-07-2009 to 16-07-2010 and handed over the policy to opposite party No.2. The stock in the complainant’s shop was damaged in the flood on 02-10-2009. The complainant informed the opposite parties about stock damage immediately and submitted his claim form with necessary enclosers to the opposite party No.1 claiming Rs.5,12,250/- towards damages. The opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the stocks in D.No.13/82 are alone insured where as the stocks in D.No.13/241 are damaged. The complainant further submitted that in the ledger of opposite party No.2 it is clearly mentioned the address as Sri Satya Traders, Kurnool Shop no.13/241, Mundy Bazar, Kurnool and the hypothecated stock was in the same address. The complainant also avered that the original policy was in the custody of opposite party No.2 and he did not know the details of shop address in the policy, only at the time of submitting the claim form a Xerox copy of the policy was supplied to him. The opposite party No.2 also did not take any action though he approached him. Negligent attitude of the opposite parties made him to suffer mentally and financially and hence this complainant is filed in the Forum claiming appropriate reliefs.
3. The complainant filed sworn Affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 in support of his claim.
4. Responding to the notice of the Forum, opposite parties filed their written version denying their liability. The opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant in his complaint mentioned that his stock in D.no.13/241, Mundy Bazar, Kurnool was submerged on 02-10-2009 due to flood water. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the policy was issued against the proposal submitted by opposite party No.2 covering the stock in complainant shop D.No.13/82. He also admitted that complainant sustained loss of stock at D.No.13/241 but suspected the shifting of stock from D.No.13/82 to 13/241 without any intimation to him though it is mandatory as per the policy conditions. So what ever loss occurred to stock out side the premises shown in the policy, the opposite party No.1 is not liable and hence the claim is repudiated. The opposite party No.1 further sated that as soon as he informed of the incident by the complainant, he appointed Sri K.Giri Kumar, surveyor to inspect the insured premises and to assess the loss due to flood. In the report of the surveyor it is mentioned that the net loss to the stock assessed was Rs.99,267/- in the D.No.13/241 and 12/46, but the premises insured as per the policy was D.No.13/82, since the change of location of the stock is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was repudiated and same was communicated through the latter dated 10-03-2010. Thus opposite party No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the case as there is no deficiency of service in settling the claim.
Opposite party No.2 in his written version stated that the complainant necessarily dragged him in to the litigation. He admitted that the complainant is running business under the name and style as Sri Satya Traders, Kurnool and availed cash credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 bank as an old customer. All the limits were closed and availed fresh limit of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15-11-2008 by the complainant and executed fresh loan documents in favour of opposite party No.2. The property bearing D.No.13/241 Mundy Bazar, Kurnool was mortgaged in favour of opposite party No.2 towards the security of the loan amount and business stocks maintained in the same premises were hypothecated. The stocks were insured on 08-07-2009 with opposite party No.1 by paying a some of Rs.1,769/-. As per the procedure the opposite party No.1 should send two copies of the policy to both parties i.e., to the complainant and also opposite party No.2. Accordingly opposite party No.2 received a copy of policy bearing No.551001/48/09/9800000056 covering the risk from 17-07-2009 to 16-07-2010. opposite party No.2 said that he was only a mediator for the transaction and as per the terms of contract the complainant and op1 should aware of the conditions of the policy. The complainant never brought to the notice of both ops about the mentioning of Door Nos. in the policy as 13/82 instead of 13/241. In the previous policy copies also same D. No was mentioned by opposite party No.1. Both the complainant and opposite party No.1 never objected it. Opposite party No.2 submitted that it is true that the shop bearing D.No.13/241and the stock in it was submerged in the floods on 02-10-2009. The complainant made correspondence with opposite party No.1 alone for the settlement of claim and never approached opposite party No.2. In view of reasons mentioned above, opposite party No.2 pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on his part and the complaint against him in liable to be dismissed.
5. Documents marked as Ex.B1 to B10 and sworn affidavit are marked by opposite parties in support of their claim.
6. The complainant and opposite parties filed their written arguments.
7. Hence the points for consideration are:
(i) Where the complainant made out any case to prove the deficiency on the part of opposite parties sustaining its liability to his claim.
(ii) What is the amount of compensation that can be awarded to him?
8. Point No.1:- Admittedly the complainant was running business at 13/241, Mundy Bazar, Kurnool under the name Sri Satya Traders and was availing loan with opposite party No.2 hypothecating his stock by insuring his stock for Rs.4,00,000/- with opposite party No.1. The insurance policy No was 551001/48/09/9800000056 and it was covering the risk period from 17-07-2009 to 16-07-2010. The premium of Rs.1,769/- was paid from complainant’s account by the opposite party No.2 on 08-07-2009. The policy was in force on 02-10-2009 on which date the stock of the complainant submerged in the flood water in the policy issued by the opposite party No.1 the D. No is mentioned as 13/82 instead of 13/241. Ex.A1 in the original policy. On intimation by the complainant about the submersion of his stock in the flood water, the opposite party No.1 appointed surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor inspected the spot and estimated the loss to Rs.99,267/-. The surveyor in his report stated that the D.No.13/82 noted in the policy is not matching the D.No.13/241 where the damage took place during the flood and also concluded that the mismatch of Door Nos. as topographical. Ex.B5 is the surveyor’s report. Ex.B3 is the reply letter from opposite party No.2 to the clarification letter of opposite party No.1 Ex.B2 where in it was clarified that the present address of the complainant in 13/241, Mundy Bazar admitting his mistake for not intimating at the time of policy renewal. The opposite party No.1 cannot escape from the responsibility since he should have verified the premises before issuing the policy. The complainant’s the bank account statement Ex.B10, the application for small business credit card Ex.B6 also are the proofs that complainant was running business, maintaining the stocks at D No. 13/241 on the date of flood i.e., 02-10-2009. Hence the topographical mistake in the mentioning D.No.13/82 instead of 13/241 may be ignored and the contention of opposite party No.1 in repudiating the claim is not accepted. And the contention of opposite party No.2 that he was only a mediator, does not absolve from his primary responsibility as a premium payer to opposite party No.1 hypothecating the complainant stock. In view of what is stated above the Forum holds that the complainant established the facts of his stock hypothecated with opposite party No.2 and insured with opposite party No.1 was damaged in the floods and proved the negligence of both opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 in settling the claim. Therefore the complainant is entitled receive the compensation under different heads as claimed by him.
9. Point No.2:- The claim of Rs.5,12,250/- towards the loss of stock in the flood in excessive. No authenticated evidence except self assessment was produced. In the report given by the surveyor, the loss is estimated to Rs.99,267/-. The opposite parties did not take any action on the complainants claim application and showed callous indifference. Therefore he is entitled compensation for mental agony.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly to pay Rs.99,267/- towards compensation for the damaged stock, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the case, payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 17th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of policy NO.551001/48/09/9800000056.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of claim form.
Ex.A3 Statement of account NO.10521488558 of complainant issued by OP.No.2.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of stock register.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter Dt.10-3-2010 issued by OP.No.1 to complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of policy NO.551001/48/09/9800000056
along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of letter dt.15-02-2010 issued by OP1 to OP2.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of letter dt.18-02-02010 issued by OP2 to OP1.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of letter dt.10-03-2010 issued by OP1
to complainant.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Fire survey Report of K.Giri Kumar,
dt.25-01-2010.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Application for small business credit card.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of policy NO.551001/48/05/9800000088.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of policy NO.551001/48/09/9800000056.
Ex.B9 Photo copy of policy NO.551001/48/10/9800000045.
Ex.B10 Photo copy of statement of account No.10521488558, from 12-03-08 to 31-08-10 dt.09-09-10.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
