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

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 27^th day of September, 2011

C.C.No.12/2011

Between:

Dr.N.Muralidhar, S/o Late N.Krishna Murthy,

Resident of D.No.58/5, Fort, Kurnool-518 001.                                        

    …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,Kurnool Branch,

D.No.40-343-A, 1^st Floor, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar,Kurnool-518 001.                                                              

...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.A.Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                   ORDER

                  (As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

   C.C. No.12/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards the cost of damages caused to the house of the complainant which was insured with the opposite party;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by the complainant for making frequent trips to the office of the opposite parties;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the costs of this complaint;
   •  
2. To grant such other and further things as this Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.                                

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant insured his house bearing D.No.58/5, Chidambara Rao Line, Kurnool with opposite party under a standard fire and special perils policy bearing No.551001/11/04/13100000225.  The period of policy is from 11-10-2004 to 10-10-2014.  Due to the floods to Tungabhadra River on 2^nd and 3^rd October, 2009 the house of the complainant was fully drowned in the flood waters and it was damaged.  After return from Bangalore the complainant submitted the claim form to the opposite party along with documents.  There after the surveyor inspected the house of the complainant and obtained the signature of the complainant on a white paper.  On 30-04-2010 the complainant approached the opposite party for settlement of the claim under the policy.  The opposite party handed over a hand written letter  dated 30-04-2010 stating that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.9,000/-.  The complainant is ready to receive the cheque for the said sum under protest. The settlement of the claim by the opposite party stating that the complainant is entitled only Rs.9,000/- is baseless and arbitrary.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant obtained the policy bearing No.551001/11/04/13100000225 from the opposite party.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The claim of Rs.3,50,000/- by the complainant is baseless.  The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy but not informing about the alleged damage of the house to the opposite party within 15 days.  The complainant under insured his building for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  As per conditions No.10 of the policy the insured has to bear the loss proportionately.  The complainant cannot question the quantum of compensation granted by the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party and third party affidavit of Sri P.Sowjanya Kumar surveyor are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the complainant insured his house bearing D.No.58/5, Chidambara Rao Line, Kurnool with the opposite party under a standard Fire and Special Perils policy Ex.A1 (Ex.B1).  The said policy is in force from 11-10-2004 to 10-10-2014. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.3,00,000/-.  It is the case of the complainant that his house was drowned in the flood waters on 2^nd and 3^rd October, 2009 and it was damaged.  The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated about the damage of his house due to flood water on 2^nd and 3^rd October, 2009.  Admittedly on intimation given by the complainant the opposite party appointed a surveyor by name Intel Surveyors and Services Private Limited.  The surveyor after inspecting the damaged house filed his report Ex.B5.  In the said report it is clearly mentioned about the damage of the house of the complainant due to flood water. 

8.     The complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.  The complainant submitted Ex.A2 claim form along with estimation of loss given by Sri K.Vijaya Sudhakar, Municipal Licenced Engineer.  The Municipal Engineer estimated the loss at Rs.3,50,000/-.  The complainant did not choose to file the affidavit of the engineer who gave the estimation about the                                    loss caused.  Admittedly the opposite party appointed a surveyor.  The surveyor filed his report Ex.B5 assessing the net loss at Rs.9,000/-.  The complainant is not satisfied with assessment made by the surveyor under Ex.B5 report.  It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant under insured his building for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- even though the  cost of the building was Rs.12,50,000/-.  The surveyor appointed by the insurance company estimated the cost of the building at Rs.25,00,000/-.  It is mentioned in the report Ex.B5 that the building of the complainant is 60 years old.  He assessed the value of the building at Rs.12,50,000/- after depreciation.    The complainant did not file any documents to show that his building was constructed recently.  The complainant filed Photos with negatives Ex.A5.  The report of the surveyor also contains photos of the house of the complainant.  As seen from the photos it is very clear that the house is a old one.  The surveyor appointed by the insurance company rightly assessed the age of the building and depreciated the building value by 50%.  According to the surveyor the cost of the building on the date of the flood was Rs.12,50,000/-.  

9.     The house of the complainant was under insured for Rs.3,00,000/-.  The surveyor taking in to consideration the value of the building on the date of floods and the amount for which the building  was insured rightly assessed the net loss at Rs.9,000/-.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited a decision reported in II (2011) CPJ 87 (NC) where in the Honourable National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed the insurance company to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant as the insurance company could not explain as to how  the surveyor assessed the loss.  In the present case on hand the surveyor clearly mentioned in his report that the building of the complainant was under insured.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy he assessed the net loss.   No ambiguity is found in the report of the surveyor who is appointed by the insurance company.  The report of the surveyor must be given due to weight.   Taking into consideration the net loss assessed by the surveyor and the circumstance of the case we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice.    

10.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e., 30.08.2010 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27^th day of September, 2011.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                  For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Policy No.551001/11/04/13100000225.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Fire Claim Form F-12 dated 02-10-2009.

Ex.A3                Office copy of representation letter dated 30-04-2010.

Ex.A4                Office copy of legal notice dated 04-05-2010 by

complainant to opposite party.

Ex.A5                Photos along with negatives (Nos.10).

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of Policy No.551001/11/04/13100000225.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Fire Claim Form F-12 dated 02-10-2009.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of letter dated 13-05-2010 by opposite party to

complainant.

Ex.B4                Photo copy of letter dated 08-09-2010 by

opposite party to complainant with acknowledgement.

Ex.B5        Photo copy of Survey report dated 09-02-2010 along with Xerox photos.                          

 Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY 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 parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :