COMPLAINT FILED ON 31/07/2019

                                                                            DISPOSED ON 18/01/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:428/2019

DATED:18/01/2023

PRESENT: - Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                             Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER                                   Smt.B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

By Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT.               

       This complainant has filed this complaint against the OP, for a direction to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with 12% interest on account of insured amount. The complainant has also sought for order to direct OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest towards the deficiency in service, and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning and mental agony.

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

         2. The complainant stated that, the complainant is the Owner of M/s Anga Matha Areca Plate, situated at Hireguntanur Village, Bheemasamudra Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, the complainant
have obtained valid licence from the concerned Authority to run the Industry and obtained from policy the OP Company vide Policy No.680502/11/17/00000632, which was in force between 16/03/2018 to 15/03/2019 by paying a premium amount of
Rs.704/-. The complainant is regularly paying premium amount to the opponent Insurance Company without fail. Moreover, the above said schedule Plate machinery and accessories is also financed by Canara Bank, Bheemasamudra Branch.                                                             

3. The complainant asserts that, on 04/03/2019, the areca Plate machinery met with heavy and disastrous fire accident on account of which the machine & equipment’s were burnt causing a loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.

        4. The complainant has further stated that this incident has been reported to OP insurance company. The OP is stated to have appointed a surveyor who in turn has opined that, the mishap was only short circuit inside the machinery. And the surveyor has opined that, it was excluded under general exceptions No.7. Under this standard fire and special perils policy.

        5. The complainant has stated that he has frequented to the office of the OP claiming for settlement of his policy claim. The OP is said to have acted on its whims and caprice, and dragged on the matter by giving lame, evasive and untenable reasons.

        6. The complainant further alleged that due to delay in settling the factual claim of the complainant, the complainant is suffering from mental agony, torture and financial crisis. It prima faciely shows that the OP is intentionally, willfully delaying in settling the actual claim to the complainant, This act of OP is stated to be deficiency in service, dereliction of duties rendering to their esteemed customers. Due to this, the complainant has incurred heavy financial loss, suffered mental agony and distress for having Insurance Policy from the OP insurance company, wherefore, the complainant has sought for the relief accordingly.

7. On registering this complaint and service of notice, the OP has made its appearance through its counsel and filed written version.

8. Version filed by the Opponent submits as hereunder:

The OP has stated in the version that, the complainant is the Owner of M/s Ganga Matha Areca Plate Machinery with this OP and he has obtained the standard fire and special perils policy from 16/03/2018 to 15/03/2019. This policy covers the risk of Plate machinery as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

9. The OP has further stated that, the averments made in para No.4 of the complaint is not admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is false to say on 04/03/2019 due to the fire mishap, Plate, machinery and equipment’s were completely burned and complainant has sustained loss to an extant of Rs.3,00,000/-.

        10. The OP has further stated in para No.5 of its versions that, “The complainant has given information to the Opponent, immediately this opponent sent the surveyor by name B.V. Kumaraswamy to survey the spot and submit their report. The surveyor went to the incident spot survey the spot, after taking photos submitted their report. In their report they have clearly mentioned the cause of loss to the Plates and Machinery was due to electric short circuit inside the Machinery itself. This cause of loss is excluded under general exclusion No.7 under this Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy”

        11. The OP has further stated that, the opponent had no knowledge that the complainant had obtained the loan from Canara Bank and with his friends and relatives to start above said industry. The opponent after receiving report from the surveyor comes to the conclusion the fire mishap is due to pure electric short circuit inside the Machinery and it will not cover the risk in the policy issued to the complainant. Hence this opponent repudiated the claim on 27/03/2019. The several allegations alleged in the complaint which are not specifically admitted and which are against the contents of this version are all false. Therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court kindly pleased to dismiss the petition with costs.

        12. Both complainant and opponent filed their evidence by way of Affidavit, the documents produced by complainant with list dated 31/07/2019 and 25/11/2019 came to be marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-2 and documents produced by Opponent marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, Both complainant and OP filed their written arguments. Heard oral arguments of both side.

        13. On the assessment of the above facts, the following points arise for our consideration Viz.

1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed in the complaint?
3. What order?

14. The findings of this commission on the Points for consideration are as below.

Point No.1: Partly In the affirmative

Point No.2: Partly In the affirmative

Point No.3: As per the final order for the following.

15. POINT NO.1 & 2: It is not disputed that, the complainant has got insured the Plate machinery and accessories with opponent Insurance Company bearing Policy No. 680502/11/17/00000632, which validated from 16/03/2018 to 15/03/2019 by paying a premium amount of Rs.704.00/-. Accordingly, the complainant is regularly paying premium amount to the opponent Insurance Company without fail.

16. The complainant further submitted that, on 04/03/2019, areca Plate machinery and met with an heavy and disastrous fire accident, Due to this fire mishap, Plate machineries and many more equipment’s were completely burned out and the complainant has incurred a heavy loss to an extent of  Rs.3,00,000/-. In this regard the complainant has approached the OP and informed about the incident. The opponent sent the surveyor and surveyor has visited the spot and inspected the machineries and come to the conclusion that, it was only short circuit inside the machinery. And the surveyor has opined that, it was excluded under general exceptions No.7. Under this standard fire and special perils policy. Hence the opponent has repudiated the claim on 27/03/2019.

        17. So far as the above fact concerned, we have perused the complainant documents that is Ex.A-1 repudiation letter, Ex.A-2 Insurance policy issued by opponent.

        18. We have perused the opponent documents that is Ex.R-1 Certified copy of the policy issued by opponent, Ex.R-2 Copy of Standard Fire & Special Perils Clause (Material Damage), Ex.R-3 Fire Survey Report, Ex.R-4 Areca Plate Machinery photos.

        19. The opponent has taken contention that, the complainant has given the information to the opponent. Immediately this opponent sent the surveyor by name B.V. Kumarswamy to survey the spot and submit their report. The surveyor went to this incident spot, survey the spot, after taking photos submitted their report. In their report, they have clearly mentioned the cause of loss to the Plate and machinery was due to electric short circuit inside the machinery itself. This cause of loss is excluded under general exclusion No.7 under this Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy.

        20. In the above circumstances we perused the Ex.R-3 Fire Surveyor Report in column No.7, Perils covered is as fallows Fire, Lighting, Air craft damages, STFT, Impact Damages, etc. which clearly reveals the fact that, the policy is covered Fire, Lighting, Air craft damages, STFT, Impact Damages etc., which comes under the fire accident.

        21. The above fact is concern of the matter, the opponent has not proved by evidence. There is no witness evidence to prove their contention. The opponent has taken the contention is not believable. Opponent has issued the policy for Plate machinery and accessories. It is comes under fire accident. Hence we rely upon reported Judgement as follows.

Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, Judgement I (2012) CPJ 474 (NC) Nihal Devi & Other V/s Ravi Hospital & Another…

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), of leakage of electricity in water cooler of hospital — Negligence — Alleged deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission allowed appeal — Hence revision — Contention, deceased father of patient who was with patient is covered by definition of ‘Consumer’ — Accepted - District Forum rightly awarded compensation of 3 lakh to complainants - Absence of formal postmortem report cannot create any doubt in this regard — Deficiency in service proved — Order of State Commission set aside — District Forum’s order restored.

22. The above citation is applicable to the present case. In this regard we perused the Ex.B-3, the OP has appointed the surveyor for inspection of the spot and to submit the survey report. As per the survey report the assessment of loss of Rs. 2,70,000/- in the above circumstance it very clearly reveals that, the OP Insurance Company admitted the fire accident and liability is reserved. The complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opponent.

        23. The report of the surveyor is an important document in settling the claim of the insured Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. For this we rely on ruling report in…

2008 (4) CPR 83 (NC) The National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch and another V/s M/s Shree Shyam Cold Storage through its Director…

 “Report of surveyor appointed under the provision of Insurance act has to be given greater importance”.

24. The complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP he is entitled for Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings as per the final order. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative.

25. POINT NO.3: In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following.

:ORDER::

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Partly allowed.

1. The OP shall pay the manufacturing of areca leaf Plate and bowls. On machinery belonging to the insured coverage amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6 %  p.a. from the date of the complaint.

2. The OP shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency of service and towards mental agony and also cost of the proceeding.

3. The OP shall pay the above said award amount with in 30 days from the date of this order.

4. In case of non-compliance of the order the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till its realization.

5. Send the free copies to both the parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 18^th January 2023.)

       LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri T. Manjunath S/o Thimmanna, by way of affidavit of   

           evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Opponent:

DW-1:-Sri. Shekariah S/o Mudalaiah by way of affidavit of   

           evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

 LADY MEMBER             MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

GM*