BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Tuesday the 28th day of November, 2006
C.C. No.133/2005
1. The proprietor,
M/s Annapurneswari Cloth Show Room,
Kurni Sai Suresh,S/o. K.Surendra,
Aged 40 years,
2. The Proprietor,
M/s. Sadguru Sai Vastalayam,
K.S.Surendra, S/o. Papaiah,
Aged 60 years, Business,
Both are in D.No.10-40, Main Road,
Pentlavally Village, Kollapur(M),
Mahaboobnagar Dist. ...Complainants
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mahaboobnagar,
Mahaboobnagar District.
2. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Kurnool.
Kurnool District. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainants, Sri. C.M.K. Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Hon’ble President
1. This case of the complainants is filed against opposite parties 1 &2 claiming damages of Rs.15,04,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 17.12.2003, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties and Rs.25,000/- as costs of this litigation, alleging themselves as proprietors of M/s. Sadguru Sai Vastalayam and M/s. Annapurneswari Cloth Showroom located in Door No.10-40 Main Road, Pentlavally(V) Kollapur(M) Mahaboobnagar (Dt) and its stocks and accessories insured with Opposite party No.1 vide fire policy No.51103/11/3/00163 for Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively and burglary policy No.51103/46/3/0036 for the same amount on the name of the complainant No.1 for the period commencing from 21.07.2003 to 20.07.2004 and on the intervening night of 16/17-11-2003 occurrence of a burglary cum fire accident in said insured shops causing loss and damage to the stock worth Rs.15,04,000/- and so besides to the reporting of the incident to concerned police given intimation of the same to the insurer and claim was made enclosing necessary supporting documents and the surveyor deputed by the opposite parties inspected and collected necessary documents for assessing the loss and thereafter inspite of lapse of much time the claim was not settled by the opposite party either way is amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties giving raise to this case in this forum as the office of opposite party No.2 is within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.
2. The opposite parties, who made their appearance through their counsels, in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, contested the case denying their liability to the complainant’s claim, filing a written version questioning the case of the complainant on the point of the territorial jurisdiction, voidness of the policy for misrepresentation and suppression of fact, as to the occurrence and loss sustained in said occurrence and the competency of the complainant No.2 for having any relief for want of any insured interest to him.
3. In substantiation of the contentions in pleadings while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A37 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments and replies to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on to documentary record in Ex.B1 to B10 besides to the sworn affidavit opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its defence and reply to the interrogatories and the evidence of RW1 –J.S.V.Kameshwara rao.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service of the opposite parties and thereby their liability to the complainant’s claim.
5.TheEx.A1and A2/B1and B2 are policy No.051103/46/03/00036 and 051103/11/03/00163 for insuring the stocks in trade to a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- against burglary and standed fire and special perils issued in the name of the complainant No.1 for stocks in trade in M/s. Sadguru Sai Vastalayam and M/s. Annapurneswari Cloth showroom, Main Road, Pentlavally (v) Kollapur(M) Mahaboobnagar (DT) for the period 21-07-2003 to 20-07-2004. The issual of said policies being not disputed by the opposite parties, they remains to have been proved as a policies issued to the complainant No.1 for the stocks in trade of said cloth shops for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- against the risks of burglary and fire and special perils.
6. The Ex.A3 is the certified copy of F.I.R. No.156/2003 of P.S Kollapur registered for offences under section 436 and 427 I.P.C. and section 3 & 5 explosive substance act on the complaint of K.Surendra (Complainant No.2 of this case.) that at 2.30.A.M. of 17-11-2003 sum unknown persons committed mischief by setting fire to stock and dynamated his cloth shop (Annapurneshwari Cloth showroom) to cause loss. It was reported to police on 18-11-2003 at 12.00 noon by the complainant No.2. The case of the complainant after to the issual of F.I.R. is that in said incident burglary also took place taking reference to the observation, of investigating police made in its Ex.A5 final report. While the EX.A4. Police panchanama of said seen of occurrence which is in earlier point of time doesn’t envisage as to any theft/burglary but only of the loss occurred due to fine as Rs.15,04,000/- as being stated to them by the complainant No.2. This complainant except merely laying reliance on the contents of Ex.A5 as to the perceptions of said investigation officer on his so called investigation – as first looting and then settle fire to the said shop by miscreants-did not brought into light the said material on which the said perception of said investigating officer could be well founded. Nor the certificate of Ex.A6 issued by the station fire officer kollapur on 17-11-2003 says of any reporting by complainant No.2 as to any burglary in said fire occurrence. If there is any truth in said burglary in said fire incident, even if the Ex.A3 does not speak of burglary in said cloth shop followed with setting fire, for want of knowledge of the same to the said complainant by the time of reporting to police, the said complainant or the neighbours whom the said fire officer alleged to have examined ever stated the fact of said burglary to said fire officer. Hence, the aspect of burglary appears to be an after thought invented for the purpose of filling the short falls found as to the stocks effected and observed at the said place of fire incident in said shop.
7. The Ex.A7 & A8 while were said to be ledger books of Sri. Sadguru Sai vastalayam for the years 2003-2004, the Ex.A9 & 10 a ledger books of Sri Annapurneshwari Cloth Show room for the year 2003-04. Non of these entries intelligibly shows the value of trade stock on 16-11-2003 as they merely shows the expenditure and receipt of cash of said day. Hence, the Ex.A7 to 10 remains of any use in discovering the value of the trade stock effected in said incident especially when there is any other cogent material even from the complainant’s side as to the particulars of the stock committed theft off and that was effected in said fire incident for showing to the forum or to the surveyor during his enquiry.
8. The Ex.A11 & 12 comprising of bills numbering 90 & 61 standing on the names of Annapurneshwari Cloth Show room and Sadguru sai Vastalayam respectively as to the purchase of the stocks of cloth for trade from various traders of various places on various dates. As the said being takes mention of the stock purchased under said bills on various date and as the said stock being purchased not for mere stocking but to trade with it which invariably mean for sale out them and the said bills being mentioning the quantum of stocks of variety of cloth purchased there under on said dates and not provides any cogent material as to what quantum from them was being sold out subsequent to said purchase the said bills in Ex.A11 & 12 even if to be true and bonafide, remains of any help to find out the actual quantum of stock effected in said fire incident Nontheless to believe the truth in the complainant’s version as to the alleged value of the stock, in the absence of any other cogent substantiating material from complainant’s side.
9. The Ex.A13 is a bunch of seven fortnightly statements showing the stock positions on 30-04-2003, 31-05-2003, 30-06-2003, 31-07-2003, 31-08-2003, 30-09-2003 and 31-10-2003 of the stocks hypothecated to the State Bank of Hyderabad Kollapur Branch signed by K.S.Suresh. Neither the complaint averments nor the Sworn Affidavit averments of complainant’s says any of their stocks of the shops were under hypothecation to the State Bank of Hyderabad. Kollapur. Neither the said fortnightly statements in Ex.A13 says the name of the shop to which the said stock pertains to. In the absence of the any material pleading as to hypothecation of the stocks, merely, because some of them were signed by K.S.Suresh for Annapurneshwari Cloth Show room, the said fortnightly statements in Ex.A13 cannot be held as of Annapurneshwari Cloth Show room, and so the said hypothecation fortnightly statements in Ex.A13 remains of any relevancy for consideration in this case.
10. The Ex.A14 in a letter dated:22-07-2004 of the opposite party No.1 issued in continuation of its earlier letter No.1576/04 dated:28-05-2004 requiring K.S.Suresh-complainant No.1 to submit within fifteen days claim forms duly filling and signing them along with the purchase bills, sale bills, books of the account for the last three years along with Bank statements and final accounts, police F.I.R. and final investigation report, fire brigade report and Income tax returns for the last three years for adjudicating the claim of policy No.051103/11/03/00163 and claim No.051103/11/03/00002 and policy No.051103/46/03/00036 and claim No.051103/46/03/00002. The Ex.A15 is letter dated:14-08-2004 of the complainant in response to Ex.A14 alleges the enclosure there to a duly filled and signed claim requesting for early settlement of claim. From the said contents of Ex.A15 it remains clear that the complainant has submitted a duly filled and signed claim form alone while the Ex.A14 was requiring the submission of some other material documents also in addition to the duly filled and signed claim form. That is why the request for submission of said documents mentioned in Ex.A14 was reiterated by the opposite party once again in its remainder letter dated:28-09-2004 (Ex.A16) making it further know that if the required documents are not submitted in fifteen days the file will be closed as “No claim” with out any further intimation holding as not interested by the complainant. The response to Ex.A16 by the complainant No.1 is Ex.A17 letter datted:05-10-2004 where in it alleges the submission of all the required the documents to the opposite party except the final investigation report, through the opposite parties surveyor-Kameshwara rao long back and the left over document will be sent to the opposite party in due course on its obtaining from the court. Excepting alleging as such the Ex.A17 doesn’t provide any particulars of reference numbers under which those documents were submitted to said surveyor. The Ex.A18 letter dated:21-10-2004 of the opposite party No.1 addressed to the complainant No.1 in pursuance to Ex.A17 says non receipt of claims under Ex.A15 and denies of any receipts alleged in Ex.A17 by its surveyor Kameshwara rao, and reminds once again requesting for submission of required documents for further action. From the Ex.A18 what follows is that the complainant has not furnished all that is required. While the matters stood thus the Ex.A19 a carbon copy of letter dated:03-11-2004 addressed to opposite party No.1 acknowledges the receipt of the documents mentioned therein. But it doesn’t indicate in pursuance of which letter of the opposite party they were submitted by the complainant No.1 to the opposite party No.1. The perusal of the contents of the said Ex.A19 indicates among the required, the complaint has submitted under Ex.A19 the copies of purchase bills numbering 6 covering the period 01-04-2003 to 14-11-2003, I.T returns balance sheet account for 2002-2003, while three years I.T. returns are required, police F.I.R and panchanama and final investigation report, fire brigade report and bank statement submitted to S.B.H Kollapur for the period 01-04-2003 to 16-11-2003, While book of accounts for last three years along with returns, bank statements and final accounts were required in Ex.A14 and A16 and did not at all submit the sale bills required in Ex.A14 and A16 and there by the complainant is remaining to have given a partial and incomplete compliance in Ex.A19 of requirement sought in Ex.A14 and A16.
11. The Ex.A20 a letter dated:30-10-2004 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.1, marking its copy to J.S.V.kameshwara rao-Surveyor of the opposite party, says it is enclosing there with its letter dated:30-10-2004 which is self explanatory. But no such letter which is said to have been enclosed, placed for its appreciation is found as alleged and on the other hand it says that he has submitted all the required documents papers as advised by the surveyor and thereby request for early settlement of claim. There appears any cogent material to understand the tenor of the said letter in Ex.A20 as to what documents and papers were sought by the surveyor on what date and what of them were submitted to the said surveyor by the complainant No.1 on what date. Hence, the Ex.A20 provides any help to draw any favourable inference in favour of the complainant.
12. While such is so, the Ex.A21/Ex.B7 letter dated:17-11-2004 of J.S.V.Kameshwara rao-surveyor of the opposite party-addressed to the complainant clearly denies of receipt of documents called for and thereby requires the submission of required documents and information directly to the opposite party No.1 and points out the defects in the submitted fire claim form, and burglary claim form besides requiring the complainant the submission of part-II C.D of the police investigation as to recorded statements of witnesses, C.C. of panchanama issued by Kollapur Court, original purchase and sale bills, day book, ledger, audited statements of accounts, for the period 1-04-2000 to 31-03-2003, 01-04-2003 to 16-11-2003, and fortnightly statements of stocks hypothecated to S.B.H Kollapur for the period 01-04-1999 to 31.10.2003 duly attested by bank. In the Ex.A22 letter dated:21-11-2004 in response to Ex.A21 the complainant No.1 says the required documents were already submitted by it opposite party No.1 vide its registered letter datted:30-10-2004. Neither any office copy of said registered letter dated:30-10-2004 disclosing of the documents enclosed therein for being received by the opposite party No.1 nor any postal receipt of its sending by registered post or any of its acknowledgement by opposite party No.1 is filed by the complainant’s side to believe the truth and bonafidies of the contentions alleged in Ex.A22.
13. The Ex.A23 is letter dated:22-11-2004 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.1 informing there under of their coming to second opposite party’s office on 26-11-2004 for discussion on claim. There being any relevant pleading to that on complainant’s side the said Ex.A23 carries any relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
14. The Ex.A24 is letter dated:27-11-2004 of the complainant No.1 to opposite party No.2 as to the result of the discussion held on 26-11-2004 as to its claim and the promise of the opposite party No.2 for its early settlement and the Ex.A25 is a reminder letter dated:21-12-2004 addressed to opposite party No.2. But these two finds little relevancy for appreciation in this case for want of any corresponding pleading in complaint pleadings or any assertions in the Sworn Affidavits of the complainant’s, or in the replies of the opposite parties to the interrogatories of the complainant.
15. The Ex.A26 is the letter dated:22-12-2004 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant No.1 in pursuance of Ex.A24 and A25 and the discussions held in Divisional Office Kurnool on 26-11-2004 with the complainant requiring the complainant No.1 to submit detailed statement of loss sustained in said incident as per the book of account furnishing there with details of date wise item purchase bills and amount of loss separately as required by the surveyor for his report and in case of there non furnishing it will direct its surveyor to submit the report without information sought by him. The perusal of the Ex.A26 also indicates of the wantings from the complainant No.1 which are standing in the way of the processing the claim.
16. The Ex.A27 letter dated:24-12-2004 addressed by the complainant No.1 to the opposite party No.1 in response to the Ex.A26 says baldly of the submission of the required documents already as per the instructions of the surveyor Kameshwara rao without furnishing the necessary particulars of the documents submitted and the date of said submission and the corresponding reference number etc., Hence, the Ex.27 doesn’t appear to be a proper compliance response of the complainant to Ex.A26 and there by exhibits the non co-operative conduct of the complainant in enabling the settlement of the claim by the opposite party.
17. The Ex.A28 is the letter dated:11-02-2005 of surveyor of the opposite parties addressed to the complainant No.1 as to the defects in the furnished material and as to the requirements which the complainant not furnished and requesting for their furnishing for finalizing the survey report. The Ex.A29 dated:18-02-2005 of the complainant No.1 in response to Ex.A28 says of its compliance as to fifteen items mentioned in page No.1of Ex.A28 and querries in Serial number 8 to 10 out of ten mentioned in page No.2 & 3 of Ex.A28 alleging their furnishing to surveyor on various dates mentioned therein . As the Ex.A28 as the requiring the material mentioned in the Ex.A28 for finalizing the survey report, in the absence of any cogent substantiative material such as acknowledgements alleged in Ex.A31 as to the alleged handing over of the said material to surveyor as alleged in Ex.A29, it is remaining hard to believe the bonafidies and truth in complaint’s version as to their alleged handing over to surveyor.
18. While such is so, the Ex.A30 letter dated:22.02.2005 of opposite party No.1 addressed to surveyor in reference to Ex.A28 letter of surveyor takes mention of receipt of a letter dt:21-02-2005 of the complainant No.1. In the absence of any endeavour to bring into record the said letter dt:21-02-2005 of the complainant No.1 there remains a vacuum as to what was mentioned in said letter dt:21-02-2005. Even though from Ex.A30 it remains clear that the fire and burglary claim form, bank statements and F.I.R. and final report as were already dispatched to surveyor on 29-11-2004 and request was made there under to the surveyor for release of his report but from the Ex.A33 letter dt:25-07-2005 of the opposite party No.1 it appears that the required necessary material and documents were not furnished by the complainant No.1 and the opposite party No.1 will be constrained to close the file as complainant not interested in the claim. In the absence of any cogent substantiating material as to filing of all the required documents either with the opposite party No.1 or with its surveyor the mere correspondence reiterating the submission of documents alleged in the Ex.A31,32 & 34 remains with any relevancy for consideration.
19. The Ex.A35 & 36 balance sheets as on 16-11-2003 signed by the complainant No.1 as proprietor of Annapurneshwari Cloth Show room and M/s. Sadguru Sai Vastalayam for assessment year 2004-2005 said to have been audited K.Ramachandar partner of Maruthi and Bhanu Narayan, Chartered Accountants, Secunderabad on 27-05-2004 shows closing stock of Rs.11,24,500/- and Rs.7,59,500/-. But there being any substantiating material as to how the closing stock was assessed in said balance sheet and the notes on account appended to said balance sheet also not clarifying the same the Ex.A35 & 36 remains with any value for its consideration. The Ex.A37–letter dt:25-02-2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to complainant No.1 discloses the wantings from the side of complainant’s to assess the loss. This also shows the reluctant conduct of the complainant No.1 is co-operating with the opposite parties in processing of settlement of claim.
20. The Ex.B3 the stock inventory signed by both the surveyor and the complainant No.1 on 08-12-2003 running in eight papers enlisting there in the value of stocks not damaged showing their total value at Rs.3,21,272-60Ps and value of damage stock at Rs.96,770/- . The Ex.B4 admits non maintenance of stock register. While such is so the Ex.B5 letter dt:23-12-2003 submitted by the complainant No.2 to the insurance investigator says the total value of the property including the burnt, damaged and not damaged stock as Rs.4,85,250-60ps and it realized a sum of Rs.20,000/- by selling some of stock out of it with the permission of surveyor.
21. From the Ex.B6 &B8 letters dated:13-01-2004, and 08-05-2004 addressed by surveyor to complainant No.1 it remains clear that the documents sought were not furnished by the complainant even till then and so was requested for their furnishing to enable him to submit the survey report and the Ex.B9 and B10 registered covers returned to the insurer further shows the indifferent conduct of the complainant at the matters.
22. While such is the material as to non furnishment of the cogent material as to the stock effected in said fire incident, the Ex.B4 a detailed exhaustive report of the surveyor prepared taking in to account all the relevant material available and their proper appreciation affording every reasonable opportunity to the complainant to furnish necessary material from the later side, assess the net value of damaged stock at Rs.91,228/- and net value of loss of furniture at Rs.9,000/- as the burglary aspect is not remaining substantiated and on the other hand as doubtful from its omission at its earliest point of time of investigation. There appears any material to doubt the impartial findings, observations and conclusions of said surveyor mention in said Ex.B4 report. When said survey report remains as impartial given by an independent agency and his evidence as Rw1 is convincing and not being discredited creating any doubt as to its bonafidies the said survey report can be safely relied in arriving at the loss to be compensated to the insured on account of said fire accident as per the decision of Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow in United India Insurance Company Limited V/s Rajanarayan and another reported in II (2005) C.P.J. page 135 and in the absence of proof of loss on account of burglary the direction to insurer to pay the sum assessed by surveyor is upheld by the decision of Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in Saood Trading Corporation V/s National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2003 Consumer Law decisions reporter page 351 and as decision of Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at Madras in Abdul Mazeed V/s Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in 1994 Consumer case reporter page 94 holds compensation as awarded by surveyor held proper in the absence of any theft as to articles in the report given to the police.
23. In the absence of cogent substantiating material as to the value of the loss claim by the complainant it remains exaggerative claim and in such a case as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi, in R.P. Garg V/s New India Assurance Company limited, reported in 2004 (7) consumer law decisions page 453 the vale assessed by the surveyor is acceptable.
24. Hence, a justifiable claim under said policy which the complainant is entitled for the loss of cloth and furniture in said fire accident remains at Rs.91,928/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively as assessed by the surveyor in his Ex.B4 report.
25. But the opposite parties instead of making payment of the said justified amount assessed by the surveyor to the complainant dodged on the settlement of claim even after the Ex.B4 and by the said deficient conduct driven the complainant to forum for having appropriate relief the opposite parties are liable to pay the costs of this litigation also to the complainant No.1, besides to the compensation assessed in Ex.B4, as there is any adverse or conflicting interests in between the complainant’s and on the other hand the complainant No.2 is expressing his no objection for payment of the entitled amounts to complainant No.1 who is none else than his son.
26. The learned counsel for the complainant takes reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Uttaranchal State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at Dehradun is New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Harmohan Singh reported in 2005 (3 )C.P.R. Page 370 to say that the insurance is to the property and when it is so its registration on other person is of little consequence and so the complainant No.1 getting insured his shop and his father’s shop by himself remains of little consequence in working out the liability’s of the insurance claim arising out of the risk run to the said property. Hence, in the light of above rational the claim of the amounts of insurance for the cloth shops standing in the name of the complainant No.2 cannot be denied merely because the insurance for both the shops were taken by the complainant No.1 especially when there is any conflicting interest in between complainant No.1 & 2 and on the other hand from the material in record the complainant No.2 is having no objection for the payment of entitled amounts to the complainant No.l.
27. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, in Purar Textiles Private Limited V/S New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2004 C.C.J page 971 holding the deficiency of insurance company in repudiating the claim on the basis of last surveyor’s report stating the claim was wrong and fabricated, is having any relevancy to the set of the circumstances of this case being not similar.
28. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme court referred by the counsel for complainant, in C.C.I. Chambers Co-operative Housing society Limited, V/s Development Credit Bank limited reported in 2003 Supreme Appeals reporter (Civil) page No.835 holding that the forum cannot shut its doors merely because recording of evidence is required or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determind, on the pretext that fora have been constituted with the object of providing summary and speedy remedy. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.J.J.Merchant and others V/s Sivanath Chaturvedi reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. page 2931 relied by the learn counsel for the complainant holds the plea that trial by forum is summary to ensure speedy justice and the complaint involving complicated issues cannot be a ground to the forum to directed the party to civil court as the forum is competent to decide complex issues. In view of the above said decisions there remains any merit and force in the contentions of the opposite party that this case cannot be tried by the forum and it is to be sent to Civil Court for adjudication.
29. The decision of Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad in Smt.M.Suvarna V/s V.Pentaiah reported in 2005 (1) C.P.R. page 64 cited by the learned counsel for the complainant holding the deficiency of builder for compensation to the complainant therein for unfinished work, is having any relevancy for its appreciation to this case as the set of circumstances of this case is entirely different.
30. There appears any tenability in the objection of the opposite party as to the territorial jurisdiction of this forum to try this case as the opposite party No.2 who is having control over the opposite party No.1 is having its office at Kurnool with in the territorial the jurisdiction of this forum.
31.Hence, in conclusion of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1&2 joint and severally to pay to the complainant No.1 Rs.91,928/- and Rs.9,000/- as assessed in the Ex.B4 surveyors report as to the loss occurred to the stock and furniture covered under fire policy along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of this complaint and Rs.2,000/- as costs with in a month of the receipt of this order. In default the complainant No.1 shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings permissible under law for having the benefit award.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 28th day of November, 2006.
MEMBER PRRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainants: Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainants:-
Ex.A1 Insurance policy No.051103/46/03/00036.
Ex.A2 Insurance Policy No.051103/11/03/00163.
Ex.A3 C.C. of F.I.R. given by Kollapur P.S. No.156/03, dated:18.11.2003.
Ex.A4 C.C. of Panchanama dated:16.11.2003.
Ex.A5 Final Report No.16/2004 by S.I. of police Kollapur to J.F.C.M.,
Kollapur.
Ex.A6 Certificate dated:17.11.2003 issued by the station fire officer,
Kollapur.
Ex.A7 Ledger Book of Sri Sadguru Sai Vastalayam, Pentlavally year 2003-
2004(page No.1 to 36).
Ex.A8 Ledger book of Sri. Sadguru Sai Vastalayam, pentlavally year 2003-
2004.(page No.1to73).
Ex.A9 Ledger book of Sri.Annapurneswari Cloth Show Room, pentlavally
year 2003-2004 (Page No.1 to 46).
Ex.10 Ledger book of Sri. Annapurneswari Cloth Show Room, Pentlavally
year 2003-2004 (page No.1 to 81).
Ex.A11 Bills 1 to 90.
Ex.A12 Bills 1 to 61.
Ex.A13 Fortnightly statement of stocks hypothecated to the State Bank of
Hyderabad, Kollapur Branch, as on 30.04.2003 (pages 1 to 7).
Ex.A14 Letter, dated:22.07.2004 by opposite party No.1to complainant No.1.
Ex.A15 Reply letter, dated:14.08.2004.
Ex.A16 Letter, dated:28.09.2004 of opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1.
Ex.A17 Reply of complainant No.1 dated:05.10.2004 to Ex.A16.
Ex.A18 Letter, dated:21.10.2004 of opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1.
Ex.A19 Reply of complainant dated:03.11.2004 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A20 Letter, dated:30.10.2004 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A21 Letter, dated:17.11.2004 by Surveyor & Loss Assessor
(J.S.V.Kameswara Rao) to complainant.
Ex.A22 Reply of complainant dated:21.11.2004 to Ex.A21.
Ex.A23 Letter, dated:22.11.2004 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A24 Letter, dated:27.11.2004 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A25 Reminder letter, dated:21.12.2004 of complainant No.1 to opposite
party No.2.
Ex.A26 Letter, dated:22.12.2004 of opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1.
Ex.A27 Reply of complainant No.1 to Ex.A26, dated:24.12.2004.
Ex.A28 Letter, dated:11.02.2005 of surveyor & Loss Assessor to complainant
No.1.
Ex.A29 Letter, dated:18.2.2005 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A30 Letter, dated:22.02.2005 of opposite party No.1 to surveyor (Sri.
J.S.V.Kameshwara Rao) copy to complainant & opposite party No.2.
Ex.A31 Letter, dated:26.02.2005 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A32 Letter, dated:04.03.2005 of complainant No.1 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A33 Letter, dated:25.07.2005 of opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1.
Ex.A34 Reply to Ex.A33 by complainant No.1 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A35 Balance Sheet as on 16.11.2003 of opposite party No.1
dated:27.05.2004.
Ex.A36 Balance Sheet as on 16.11.2003 of opposite party No.1
dated:27.05.2004.
Ex.A37 Letter, dated:25.02.2005 issued by Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance company, Ltd., Kurnool to K.Sai Suresh (complainant No.1)
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.RW.1 Deposition of Rw1 Dt:03-03-06 (J.S.V.Kameshwara Rao)
Ex.B1 Fire policy No.051103/11/03/00163 along with terms & conditions.
Ex.B2 policy No.051103/46/03/00036 along with terms & conditions.
Ex.B3 Stock Inventory report (Signature of the issued on the said inventory).
Ex.B4 Survey report.
Ex.B5 Letter, dated:23.12.2003 of complainant No.2 (value of stock damaged
of Rs.4,85,250/-).
Ex.B6 Letter, dated:13.01.2004 of J.S.V. Kameswara Rao surveyor & Loss
Assessor to opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2.
Ex.B7 Letter, dated:17.11.2004 of J.S.V. Kameswara Rao surveyor & Loss
Assessor to opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2.
Ex.B8 Letter, dated:08.05.2004 of J.S.V. Kameswara rao surveyor & Loss
Assessor to complainants.
Ex.B9 By Regd., post cover addressed to insured were returned.
Ex.10 By Regd., post cover addressed to insured were returned.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. C.M.K. Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
