Date of Filing ::30-11-2010
Date of Disposal ::17-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Friday, this the 17th 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.160/2010
Polavarapu Venkata Seshaiah,
Son of Ramaiah,
Aged 55 years,
Karavadi Village,
Ongole Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by Branch Manager,
CMB Compound,
VIP Road, Peejay Plaza,
Visakhapatnam.
2) The Superintendent,
Auction Plot Form No.23,
Tobacco Board, Ongole-II,
Near Throvagunta,
By the side of NH-5,
Ongole Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 07-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri P.L. Govindaiah, advocate for complainant and Sri K. 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 is having a tobacco barn also. The complainant is growing tobacco as per the norms of the tobacco board. The complainant was given permission to raise tobacco for the academic year 2009-2010 and he raised the said crop. In May, 2010, the barn of the complainant was damaged due to LAILA cyclone. The tobacco barn of the complainant was damaged and stock worth Rs.40,000/- was also damaged. The tobacco board officials and the insurance company surveyors inspected the village and assessed the damage at Rs.11,046/-. Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned towards the tobacco barn. The complainant did not accept the cheque as the opposite parties insisted that it is towards full satisfaction. The same is deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint for payment of Rs.1,77,160/-, for compensation and costs.
2. The brief averments of the counter of first opposite party are as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The second opposite party obtained an insurance policy for the period from 01-11-2009 to 31-10-2010 under certain terms and conditions. The opposite party is not aware of the other details. The opposite party is not aware of the excessive damage as claimed by the complainant. The opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.11,046/-, after deducting the excess amount. The cheque was sent to the complainant. The claim is excessive. The opposite party is not liable to pay the claim. There is no deficiency of service since this opposite party settled the claim and sent the cheque to second opposite party. Hence, the claim may be dismissed.
3. The brief averments of the counter of second opposite party are as follows:
It is fact that due to LIALA cyclone, the barn of the complainant was damaged. The complainant submitted a claim form with required documents to the surveyor of the first opposite party directly. The opposite party is not concerned with the assessment of damage. The opposite party is only a facilitator. This opposite party visited the fields and intimated the same to the first opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no cause of action against this opposite party. Hence, the claim may be dismissed.
4. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
5. The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the first opposite party the junior legal executive and independent surveyor filed their affidavits as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B4 were marked for the first opposite party.
6. POINT:- This complaint is filed by a tobacco grower averring loss to his tobacco barn due to the cyclone that occurred in May, 2010. The complainant averred that his entire tobacco barn was damaged along with stocks and that the insurer offered an amount of Rs.11,046/-, which he refused to receipt. The complainant assessed the damage to his tobacco barn at Rs.1,36,160/- and Rs.40,000/- towards tobacco stocks. The complainant is seeking the above amount along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite parties are denying their liability. The second opposite party contended that the contract of insurance is between the complainant and the first opposite party and that he has no role to play. From the respective contentions, it is clear that the contract of insurance is between the complainant and the first opposite party. As such, the second opposite party has no role in settling the insurance claim between the parties. Hence, this complaint against the second opposite party is not maintainable. Accordingly the same is dismissed, but without costs, against the second opposite party.
Most of the facts are admitted. The loss to the tobacco barn of the complainant during the cyclone is admitted. The first opposite party appointed a surveyor to inspect, assess the damage and file a comprehensive report. The surveyor filed his report. The surveyor also gave affidavit with regard to the inspection, he has done and with regard to the damage he has assessed, as R.W.2. The complainant admitted, that an amount of Rs.11,046/- alone was offered to him after the report was filed by the surveyor and that it was not acceptable to him. It is evident that a surveyor has inspected the tobacco barn of the complainant and assessed the damage to it. The surveyor found only damage to the tobacco stock of the complainant. The report of the qualified surveyor has more evidentiary value. The surveyor is a qualified technocrat with expertise in the field of assessing damage. As against the said technical material, the complainant did not file any technical material. As against the report of the surveyor, the self-supporting claim of the complainant alone is available. As per the established principles of law, preference has to be given to the report of expert. Hence, we are of the view that the report of the qualified surveyor shall prevail over self-supporting claim of the complainant. The surveyor has arrived at the loss in a technical and scientific manner. The same should prevail over the claim of the complainant. The insurance company offered to compensate the complainant on the basis of the report of the surveyor. The insurance company has not committed any deficiency of service in taking such a stand. The complainant failed to make out the deficiency of service. The first opposite party is directed to send a fresh cheque of Rs.11,046/- to the complainant, immediately after the disposal of this case. The point is held against the complainant.
7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs. The first opposite party is directed to send a fresh cheque for Rs.11,046/- (rupees eleven thousand and forty six only) to the complainant, immediately after the disposal of this case.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 17th day of July, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY:
R.W.1 17-06-2011 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.
R.W.2 G. Chenchaiah, son of Pedda Veeraiah, Hindu,
aged 58 years, independent surveyor-cum-loss assessor, R/o D.No.37-1-406 (46/A), II lance, Bhagyanagar, Ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 16-10-2010 Office copy of legal notice to the opposite
parties.
Ex.A2 Two postal receipts.
Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.A4 Photostat copy of Fire Claim Form of
complainant.
Ex.A5 09-04-2010 Photocopy of sale note of complainant.
Ex.A6 Photograph of the tobacco barn.
Ex.A7 25-07-2011 Letter issued by second opposite party.
Ex.A8 13-07-2011 Letter issued by second opposite party.
Ex.A9 Copy of List of Growers whose Barns were
damaged due to Laila Cyclonic Rains.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR FIRST OPPOISTE PARTY:
Ex.B1 Copy of Policy Schedule with terms and
conditions.
Ex.B2 03-08-2010 Copy of Final Survey report with barn
photograph.
Ex.B3 Photostat copy of 2009-Andhra Pradesh
Auctions-Platform wise information.
Ex.B4 Photostat copy of 2009-Andhra Pradesh
Auctions-Platform wise information.
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) Sri P.L. Govindaiah, advocate, Ongole.
2) Sri K. Srinivasulu, advocate, Ongole.
3) Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate, Ongole.
Date when free copy was issued:
//True Copy//
