Date of Filing ::11-02-2011
Date of Disposal ::31-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Friday, this the 31st day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.52/2011
Gokanakonda Rangaiah,
son of Atchaiah Naidu,
aged 63 years,
D.No.6-177,
Chinthalapalem Village & Colony,
Zarugumalli Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) The Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company
Limited,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
2) The Tobacco Board,
Auction floor no.24,
Tangutur, Prakasam District. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 20-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ravi Babu, advocate for complainant and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, advocate for first opposite party and Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for second opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is a tobacco grower. He has a tobacco barn insured with the first opposite party for Rs.2,00,000/-. The tobacco barn was totally damaged due to Liala cyclone on 20-05-2010. The complainant sustained loss of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant informed the loss to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appointed a surveyor, who visited the spot and assessed the loss. The insurance people surprisingly offered Rs.7,496/- towards the damages, which is trivial. The complainant accepted the same without prejudice to his claim. There was no scientific reason for assessing such small amount. Hence, the complaint for payment of damaged amount and costs.
2. The brief averments of the counter of first opposite party are as follows:
The complainant informed the damage to his barn in Liala cyclone. This opposite party appointed an independent surveyor, who inspected the premises and assessed the loss at Rs.7,500/- after deducting policy excess and salvage. The barn of the complainant was not damaged. As per the terms of the contract, the complainant is not entitled to any amount in excess of Rs.10,000/- on each and every claim. The opposite party sent a cheque after deducting premium to the complainant, to the tobacco board. Hence, there is no deficiency of service. As there is no deficiency of service, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is filed with false allegations. The opposite party is not liable to the reliefs. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable.
3. The brief averments of the counter of second opposite party are as follows:
The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. It is fact that the tobacco barn of the complainant was damaged in the month of May, 2010, due to the cyclone. The opposite party is only a facilitator and has nothing to do with the activities of the first opposite party. The first opposite party has to settle the claim. There is no privity of contract. The complainant is not a consumer. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
5. The complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the first opposite party, the junior legal executive and independent licenced surveyor filed their affidavits as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked for the first opposite party.
6. POINT:- The affidavits of the parties are more or less in accordance with their stand in this case. The written arguments filed by first opposite party also reflect the respective contentions of the party in the case. They are repetitive of the averments of the counter mostly. As such, the contentions of the party are being dealt with in essence. Each and every contention found in the written arguments, is not being dealt with separately.
7. The complainant contended that the tobacco barn insured with the first opposite party, was damaged in the cyclone. The complainant filed this case against the officer of the tobacco board and the insurance company. The second opposite party contended that it has nothing to do with the insurance claim and that it is between the complainant and his insurer, i.e., the first opposite party. The above contention is relevant. The complainant has no claim against the second opposite party. His grievance is that the insurance company has not paid the money even after damage. Therefore, the second opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceeding. The claim in this complaint can be decided even in the absence of the second opposite party. As such, the complaint is dismissed against the second opposite party, without costs.
8. The complainant admitted receiving Rs.7,496/-, but without prejudice to his claim. However, the first opposite party filed copies of the receipts along with memo on 27-07-2015. The copies of the receipt show that the complainant received Rs.7,496/- in full satisfaction of his claim, against the insurer. The complainant also filed the same document, marked as Ex.A4. The documents of the complainant do not throw any light on the damage caused to the tobacco barn. Ex.A1 is the photograph filed by him. The surveyor also filed photographs along with his report. The report and the photographs are marked as Ex.B2. After his inspection, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.7,500/-. The surveyor is a qualified person to assess the loss in cases of damage. The report of the surveyor cannot be brushed aside in a casual manner. The complainant has not filed any material to disregard the report of the surveyor. In addition, the complainant having received the amount in full satisfaction, cannot reagitate the same in this proceeding, attributing the deficiency of service. Here is a case wherein, the claim was settled by the insurer. The complainant and the insurer agreed on some amount, which was paid to the complainant. The facts of the case do not disclose a deficiency of service. Since there is no deficiency of service, the claim is unsustainable. The point is held against the complainant.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of July, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 11-02-2011 Gokanakonda Rangaiah, son of Atchaiah Naidu,
aged 63 years, D.No.6-177, Chinthalapalem Village, Zarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY:
R.W.1 30-01-2012 G. Chandra Sekhar, son of late Rama Rao,
Hindu, aged 34 years, working as Junior Legal Executive, M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Vijayawada, now present at Guntur.
R.W.2 30-01-2012 N. Varaha Swamy, son of Anjaneyulu, aged 47
years, Independent Licenced Surveyor Cum Loss Assessor, approved by I.R.D.A. residing at Flat No.P1, Indrani Estates, Annavarappadu, Ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of tobacco grower’s pass book of
Complainant three barn photos.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of tobacco barn pass book of
complainant.
Ex.A3 Photocopy of letter issued to the complainant by
Ombudsman.
Ex.A4 Photocopy of receipt for Rs.7,496/-.
Ex.A5 16-11-2010 Photocopy of letter to the ombudsman by the
complainant, with photocopy of DD for Rs.7,496/-.
Ex.A6 Photocopy of household card of complainant.
Ex.A7 15-02-2011 Copy of certificate issued by O.P.2.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR FIRST OPPOISTE PARTY:
Ex.B1 Copy of Policy Schedule with terms and
conditions.
Ex.B2 13-06-2010 Copy of final report of surveyor with 7 barn
photographs.
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The first opposite party.
3) The second opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//free copy//
