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 27th day of May , 2010
C.C.No.134/08
Between:
M/s New Ramakrishna Agencies, Fertilizers and Pesticides,
D.No. 2-428-124-B-7-1, Opp. Sandya Takies, Nandyal .
Rep. by its Proprietor, B.V.Ramakrishna Reddy , S/o.Siva Rami Reddy ,
…Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Branch Manager, M/s. Karnataka Bank,
60/50, Srinivasa Circle, Nandyal
2.The Branch Incharge ,(Amendment carried out as per the I.A.No.294/08 vide dated 04/10/2008), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance,
Alankar Plaza, IInd floor Park Road, Kurnool 518 002.
3. The Deputy Manager for claims ,(Amendment carried out as per I.A 94/08 vide dated 04/10/2008) , Bajaj Allianz,
608 and 609,IInd Block, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.V. Krishna Reddy , Advocate, for complainant , and Sri. M. Srinivasan , Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and Sri . P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and 3 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.134/08
1. The case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act , 1986 seeking a direction on the Ops to pay Rs.19,75,000/- towards building damage with interest @ 24% p.a , Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards the cost of the case.
2. It is the case of complainant that he is the proprietor of New Rama Krishna Agencies , carrying out business at shop bearing No.A-20 Balaji Complex, Nandyal. He availed overdraft facility with OP.No.1 and inturn insured the stock for Rs.30 lakhs under Standard Fire and Perils policy No. 0G-08-1806-4001-00000232 and building for 20 lakhs under another policy No. OG-07-1801-4001-0049-75 . The two policies are inforce and adequately covered , on 7/8-12-07at 1.30 a.m , while he was at Tirupathi on tour received a phone call from GiriKumar that his shop in the cellar caught fire. The complainant immediately informed his clerk and OP.No.1 (The Branch Manager , Karnataka Bank , Nandyal ) to go to the shop , returned to Nandyal on 08-12-2007 and registered a complaint before I Town P.S Nandyal vide FIR No. 171/2008 at 08-12-2007 . That after the OP.No.2 along with OP.No.1 visited to shop and assessed the loss of stock and estimated the building damage with the help of third party surveyor and consultant civil engineer. In the mean time the police submitted “Action Drop” final report to the 1st class Judicial Magistrate stating that the fire accident was due to electrical short circuit suspecting no foul play in it. The complainant stated that Ops 2 and 3 agreed to pay Rs.30 lakhs towards stock loss and Rs.18 lakhs towards building damage after submitting claim forms with necessary documents , subsequent issue of legal notice on 03-05-2008 and negotiations with the people of Hyderabad office. The complainant averred that OP.No.3 sent a cheque for Rs.19 lakhs on 13-05-2008 to him as the compensation to the stock loss and informed him on phone that the balance Rs.11 lakhs would be paid soon. Non receipt of the balance amount by him for a long time made him to issue another legal notice on 19-06-2008 to Ops. In response to the legal notice OP.No.3 sent a fax message intimating that building damage was settled for Rs.1,99,000/- . Not satisfied with the settlement , the complainant was compelled to file the case against Ops seeking appropriate releifs. Rs.11 lakhs which was unpaid being the compensation to the stock loss was ordered to pay by OP.2 and 3 in C.C.157/08 of this forum.
3. To substantiate his case the complainant relied on documents marked as Ex.A1 to A11.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum , the Ops made their appearances through their counsels and contested the case filling written version denying their liability for complainants claim.
5. The written version of OP.No.1 submits that he provided over draft facility to the complainant after getting the stock and building insured with OP.No.2 and OP.No.3 . If also submits that OP.No.1 has to role in setting the claim of the complainant . In support of his case OP.No.1 filed S.A.
6. The OP.No.2 and 3 in their written version submitted that the policy was issued in the name of M|s. New Ramakrishna Agencies and where as the ownership title of the building is in the name of the complainant in an “Individual” capacity . How ever the policy issued by Ops was inforce and adequately covered at the time of accidental fire on the intervening night dated 07/08-12-2007. The Ops 2 and 3 averred that the alleged electrical short circuit which was the cause for accidental fire in the shop was suspicious and on that the claim of the complainant could not be settled. When the same was informed to the complainant and OP.No.1 , they requested OP.No.2 and 3 to settle the issue on ‘Non standard basis’ . During the said process the complainant and OP.No.1 agreed to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.19 lakhs , out of net loss assessed for Rs.25,78,079/- . The same was sent to OP.No.1 who acknowledged it . The OP.No.1 also issued discharge voucher for full and final settlement for Rs.19 lakhs on 29-05-2008. But at that time no settlement was made for building damages due to title dispute and they did not agree to settle the building loss for Rs.18 lakhs. But OP 2 and 3 accepted that the building suffered partial damage in the alleged accidental fire. They assessed the net loss to the building at Rs.1,99,000/- with the help of qualified independent insurance surveyor namely Mukund (appointed by IRDA) and a qualified civil engineer who assisted him. OP 2 & 3 averred that the complainant not accepting the building loss at Rs.1,99,000/- filed an estimate for Rs.22,10,000/- prepared by C. Mahesh Kumar an unqualified private consulting diploma holder at Nandyal for the reconstruction the entire multistoried building. They further submit that their liability is only at Rs.1,99,000/- and are ready and willing to pay the said amount even today if the complainant satisfies the title dispute. In view of what is stated above the OP.No.2 & 3 prayed this forum for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
7. In support of the case OP 2& 3 filed documents marked as Ex.B1 to B4.
8. Now on the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are
i) Whether the complainant made out any case to prove deficiency of service on the part of Ops.
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation from Ops as prayed.?
iii) What is the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to him ?.
9.Points 1 and 2:- The complainant B.V. Ramakrishna Reddy , Proprietor of New Ramakrishna Agencies carrying out fertilizer and pesticide business at cellar portion of a multistoried building bearing shop No. A-20 Balaji complex, Nandyal . As per Ex.A9 and B2 the area of cellar is 1250 sft. The complainant availed over drat facility with OP.1 and got insured the stock and building for Rs.30 lakhs and 20 lakhs respectively with OP.No.2 and 3 as detailed in Ex.B1 . The two policies on the date of accidental fire and inforce and adequately covered. On 07/08-12-2007 at 1-30 a.m the shop caught fire due to electrical short circuit in the cellar portion. In the accidental fire the stock turned into ash and the building also suffered damage. Ex.A3 to A5 are FIR registered in I Town P.S. Nandyal , charge sheet and “Action drop” final report of police. They were filed by the complainant to prove that the fire accident was due to electrical short circuit and that there was no foul play as suspected by OP-2 & 3. The complainant submitted claim forms to Ops 2 & 3 intime to claim the damage of the building. But the OP 2 & 3 agreeing to settle on non standard basis did not settle the claim on the ground that the ownership title of the building is in the name of B.V.Rama Krishna Reddy in an “ individual ” capacity but not on M/s. New Ramakrishna agencies . The action of Ops 2 & 3 in refusing the claim on the ground of title dispute at this stage cannot be accepted since they had already issued policy covering the damages of the building by receiving premium.
10. In view of what is stated above the forum holds that the complainant has established all facts entitling him to receive the relief under different heads as claimed by him.
11.Point No.3: The claim of building damage of 18 lakhs is excessive . Ex.A9 is the estimate prepared by C. Maheshkumar and other material papers produced by the complainant are not enough to prove that the building lost its total strength in accidental fire and need to propose reconstruction of the entire multistoried building. The building damage compensation of Rs.19,09,000/- agreed to give by Ops 2 & 3 in low as compared to marketrates, to take up repairs in 1250 sft area cellor portion of the building where fire accident occurred Rs.350/- per sft for repairs at that time is reasonable.
12. The Ops 2 & 3 did not take any action on the basis of complaint made to him and inspite of legal notices. Therefore the complainant is untitled compensation for mental agony.
13. For the reasons set above the complaint is allowed directing the Ops 2 & 3 to pay Rs.4,37,500/- compensation to the building damage @ Rs.350/- pe sft (approx market rate) for 1250 sft area of cellar portion of the building Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the case payable within 6 weeks from the date of this order. The claim on OP.1 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27th day of May , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of legal notice dated 03-05-2008
along with two courier receipts.
Ex.A2. Another legal notice dated 19-06-2008.
Ex.A3. Proceedings of Sub-divisional police officer, Nandyal in
Cr.No.171/07 of P.S. Nandyal (I Town)
Ex.A4. Case disposal report in Cr.No.171/07 of P.S.Nandyal (I town)
Ex.A5. Certified copy of final report inspection of police Nandyal.
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of fire attendance certificate.
Ex.A7. Xerox copy of fax letter dated nil by OP.No.3.
Ex.A8. Xerox copy of sale deed dated 28-03-2006.
Ex.A9. Xerox copy of estimation for proposed re-construction of cellor
Ex.A10. Reply notice dated 05-09-2008 with its postal cover.
Ex.A11. Attested Xerox copy of certificate issued by State Board of
Technical education and training.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Policy No.0G-07-1801-4001 -00004975 along with terms
and conditions.
Ex.B2. Survey report of E. Mukund.
Ex.B3. Inspection report dated nil of consulting engineer.
Ex.B4. Office copy of reply dated 11-08-2008.
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:
