Date of filing : 29-11-2010
Date of order : 23 -11 -2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.250/2010
Dated this, the 23rd day of November 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
M/s. Mother Graphics, Represented by S.Raju, } Complainant
S/o.Sadashivan, Proprietor for M/s Mother
Graphics, Editor, Printer and Publisher,
“Karaval” Daily, B-3, Sidco Industrial Estate,
Po.Vidyangar, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.Rajesh.K, Kasaragod).
1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, } Opposite parties
1st floor, Bindu Shopping Arcade,
Ashwini Nagar, Kasaragod. 671121.
(Adv. Mohan Prakash, Kasaragod)
2. The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd,
Kasaragod Branch, Gokul Building M.G.Road,
Kasaragod.
(Adv. A.C.Ashok Kumar, Kasaragod)
3. The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,
Kasaragod branch, City Point Building,
M.G. Road, Kasaragod.
(Adv. S. Mahalinga, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Complainant is the proprietor of Mother Graphics and editor, printer and publisher of Karaval daily. The firm of the complainant is hypothecated to opposite party No.1 and insured with opposite parties 2 & 3. On 21-03-2010 night it was set to fire by some unknown miscreants and as a result sustained a loss of `1,50,000/-. Subsequently he submitted necessary claim form before opposite parties 2 & 3. A surveyor deputed jointly by opposite parties 2 & 3 assessed the loss sustained. Thereafter both the insurers repudiated the claim. Therefore the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed separate versions.
3. According to opposite party No.1 they are unnecessary party to the proceedings and they have nothing to do with the claim of the complainant. All the submissions made by the complainant to them has been forwarded to opposite parties 2 & 3 and the claim is to be settled by opposite parties 2 & 3.
4. According to opposite partyNo.2 they had insured the printing press and printing papers during the period from 15-07-2009 to 14-07-2010 and subsequently the printing offset machine for the period from10-11-2009 to 09-11-2010 to cover the loss under fire. But the complainant has not given any intimation regarding the fire or submitted the claim form. Hence they have not repudiated the claim. Printing press and papers insured with opposite party No.2 are kept in a separate room and fire was not spread to that sections and no damages or loss was suffered to the machineries insured with opposite party No.2. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount as compensation to opposite parties.
5. According to opposite partyNo.3 they had insured complainant’s firm Mother Graphics as per policy No.441602/11/2010/123. It was subjected to hypothecation to opposite party No.1 The complainant intimated that on 20-03-2010 at midnight some anti-social elements set fire to the firm and a crime was registered by Kasaragod police. On receiving the claim, a licensed surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. According to him the loss was only `8340/-. Since the said amount is less than `10,000/- and it was excluded under General Exclusion (A)(b) clause of the policy of opposite party No.2, they are not liable to pay any amount and therefore the claim is treated as no claim. The complainant is not entitled for any loss as claimed by the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected.
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A6 marked on his side. Exts b1 & B2 marked by opposite party No 2 and Exts B3 & B4 marked by opposite party No.3. Manager of opposite partyNo.1 filed affidavit as DW1. All the parties are heard and documents perused.
7. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he claimed is the issue to be settled in this case.
8. According to opposite party No.3, the surveyor T.Rajeevan jointly deputed by opposite parties 2 & 3 has assessed the damages. As per his assessment the loss is `8340/- only. Ext.B4 is his survey report. In Ext.B4 surveyor has reported that for the indemnification of the loss for electrical installation and furniture the sum required is 8340/- and as this amount is less than the policy excess there is no liability to the insurer.
9. According to the complainant the loss sustained is `1,50,000/-. But absolutely no documents are produced by the complainant to prove that he sustained such a loss. He has no case that the surveyor has not considered the actual loss. No copies of the bills or vouchers are produced by the complainant to take a different view other than that of the surveyor in assessing the damages. Complainant also not cared to call for the claim file from the opposite parties to prove that he loss incurred is more than that is assessed by the surveyor. Complainant has placed reliance on a number of judgments of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to establish that the findings of the surveyor cannot be accepted in its entirely. ( New India Assurance Co.Ltd V. Ploycap Industries (2010 STPL (CL) 1426 NC, HADIMBA International Ltd V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors 2010 STPL (CL) 196 (NC). But in the absence of any materials placed before us to take a contrary view we are inclined to accept the finding of the surveyor.
In the circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed without any costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1..Photocopy of FIR
A2. 06-05-2010 copy of letter issued by T.Rajeevan, Surveyor to complainant.
A3. 21-03-2010 Photocopy of Fire report
A4. Photocopy of policy
A5. Photo copy of policy
A6. Standard Fire & Special perils Policy Schedule.
B1& B2.. Policies
B3.Standard Fire and Special Perils policy.
B4. Survey Report 09-08-2010.
PW1. S. Raju
DW1. Vinodkumar. K.P.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
