BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 14th day of July , 2009
C.C.No.131/08
Between:
M. Neelakantappa, S/o. Late Kondappa, Proprietor, M/s.Pradeep Agencies,
Shop No.4, Indoor Stadium, Near Police Control Room, Kurnool. …Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.4-344, 1st Floor, Tula Complex, Kurnool-518 007. ..Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasan, Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri.D.A.A.Ahamad, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President)
C.C.No. 131/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him the assured amount of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony besides to the cost and other relief’s entitled alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party in offering Rs.19,883/- only , towards the settlement of his claim worth Rs.2 ,01,985/- arising out of the contingency of loss of the business stocks kept in the complainants shop under shop keers policy NO. 980000009/ 07 / 22 /07 for an assured sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in the floods occurred in Kurnool on 22-06-2007 .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of this forum as to this case of the complainant the OP has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case denying any of its liability to the complainants claim filling its written version seeking dismissal of the complainants case.
3. The written version of the opposite party besides denying any of its deficiencies on its part submits that, in spite of avoidance by the complainant in placing relevant records for assessment of the damage , its surveyor on the available material reasonable assessed the loss at Rs.9,883/- and the complainant denied the said offer by not issuing discharge voucher to that effect and so there being any deficiency on
its part in settling the claim and so there being any bonafides in the cause of action of the complainant , seeks the dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A17 and his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case ,, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B6 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiencies of the opposite party in settlement of the insurance claim and there by the liability of the OP for complainants claim.
6. The issual of policy alleged by the complainant being not denied by the opposite party , the Ex.A5 – Xerox of said policy is not requiring any further appreciation than what it connotes for .
7. The Ex.A7 is an alleged statement of loss of the stocks . It serves any purpose in this case as it does not envisage as to who issued it as not even bearing the signature of its issuer to feel any of its authenticity.
8. The Ex.A8 is a Xerox of tax invoice dated 28-05-2007 said to have been issued in favour of complainants business concern for commodities worth R.s.59 ,010/- . The Ex.A9 is an unattested Xerox accounts copy said to have been issued by Nirma Limited in favour of complainant’s business concern for commodities worth Rs. 1,41,074 .55ps on 30-05-2007 . The Ex.A10 is a Xerox said to have been issued by Venkata Sai Agencies , Hyderabad in favour of complainants business concern. But they remains of any avail to the case of the complainant for want of any particulars of commodities and their value if any covered there under and any evidence of persons having privy to that in explaining of those documents. The Ex.A11 is an unattested Xerox of tax invoice dated 07-03-2007 said to have been issued by the Ravigion Sugar Farm Limited , Hyderabad in favour of complainant’s business concern as to commodities worth Rs. 64,826.22 PS./- for want of any cogent material as to the existence of said commodities of stock in the shop of complainant on the date of floods the said Ex.A11 is remaining of any value worthy of consideration . For the same reason the commodity covered in Ex.A12 – Xerox invoice said to have issued in favour of the complainant for the value of the commodity mentioned there in .
9. The Ex.A13 being a mere Xerox of a cash receipt said to have been issued by Kranthi Road Transport Limited , Vijayawada as to mere freight charges paid on 19-06-2007 without any particulars of the commodity transported there under , the said Ex.A13 remains with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case of the complainant.
10. The Ex.A14 is an unattested Xerox of a monthly return alleged of the complainants business concern covering the period from 01-05-2007 to 31-05-2007 as it merely envisages the particulars as to total amount of inp-ut tax and out put tax levied and not of the stocks and that to of the paid more than one month prior to the date of floods , remains with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case of the complainant .
11. The Ex.A17 is said as a statement of stock as on 21-06-2007. It was singed by the complainant for his business concern. There is any cogent material from the complainant side as to the factors and sources on which it was prepared and as to why the said statement was not submitted for consideration during surveyors joint inspection in complaints presence or atleast taken any mention of it in Ex.A15 letter addressed by the complainant to the surveyor . Hence the E.xA17 remains with any bonafides for laying any reliance.
12. The Ex.A16 merely certifies as to the inundation of Kurnool city in floods on 22-06-2007 and 23-06-2007 . The mere existence of floods being not the criterial for assessment of loss and it should be on physical verification of the business spot and cogent relevant record as to the commodity damaged , the ex.A16 remains of any help to the case of the complainant except to feel a fact of existence of floods on said dates.
13. The Ex.A1 letter dated 18-01-2007 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party indicates that the loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.19,883/- on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant itself . The Ex.B5 – surveyors report deals with all details as to how it , assessed the said value of loss communicated in Ex.A1 . There being any cogent circumstances or material to doubt the bonafides of said assessment made by the surveyor , especially from the Ex.A16 the avoiding conduct of the complainant in making available any relevant document for consideration in response to Ex. B3 and B4 is remaining clear.
14. Further if there is any genuineness in Ex.A17 statement of stocks alleged to be on 21-06-2007 there appears any reason for its omission and non reflection in the Ex.B6 – joint inspection of stock made on 25-06-2007 in the very presence of complainant .
15. As stated earlier there being any basis for the alleged loss to the tune of Rs.2,01,985/- , the mere recital to that effect in Ex.A3 legal notice dated 28-01-2008 remains of any help to the case of the complainant , especially when the bonafides of the opposite party in said settlement for Rs. 19,883/- is remaining established vide detailed report of surveyor in Ex.B5 and the offer of the same to the complainant vide Ex.A1 and A2.
16. Hence there remains any material to hold the deficiency of the opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant and any bonafides in the cause of action of the complainant.
17. But however as the complainant is entitled to said settled amount of Rs.19,883/- offered by the opposite party under Ex.A1 and A2 and it cannot be denied merely because the complainant has not properly responded upon the said Ex.A1 and A2 , the complainants case is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.19,.883/- to the complainant . Time granted for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. As any deficiency on the part of the opposite party is found, there is no order as to cost as each party to the proceeding to bear the cost. In default of the compliance of the above direction the said amount of Rs.19.883/- will be payable to the complainant by the opposite party with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 14th day of July, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter dated 08-01-2007 of OP to complainant.
Ex.A2. Claim disbursement voucher dated nil.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 28-01-2008.
Ex.A4. Reply of OP dated 04-02-2008 to Ex.A3.
Ex.A5. Xerox copy of policy No.551001/48/07/9800000009.
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of claim form.
Ex.A7. Loss of the stocks statement.
Ex.A8. Xerox copy of the bill dated 28-05-2007
Ex.A9. Xerox copy of account copy dated 30-05-2007.
Ex.A10. Xerox copy of tax invoice dated 22/05/2007.
Ex.A11. Xerox copy of tax invoice dated 19-03-2007.
Ex.A12. Xerox copy of invoice dated 23-02-2007.
Ex.A13. Xerox copy of cash receipt dated 19-06-2007.
Ex.A14. From VAT 200 from 01-05-2007 to 31-05-2007 of complainant.
Ex.A15. Representing dated 08-10-2007 of complainant to surveyor.
Ex.A16. Certificate dated 14-08-2007 issued by Tasildar, Kurnool.
Ex.A17. Statement of stocks as on 21-06-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 25-06-2007 of complainant to OP.
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 25-06-2007 of OP to
surveyor.
Ex.B3. Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 02-10-2007 of surveyor
to complainant.
Ex.B4. Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 04-10-2007 of OP to complainant .
Ex.B5. Attested Xerox copy of surveyor report dated 05-12-2007.
Ex.B6. Attested Xerox copy of joint inspection of stock affected of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
