BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 31/08/2010

Date of Order : 31/01/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 475/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant availed himself of a house maintenance loan for his house bearing No. X/1114 Fort Kochi. The 1^st opposite party insured the complainant's building with the 2^nd opposite party as per Fire Insurance Policy valid upto 27-02-2012. The complainant was not informed by the 1^st opposite party regarding the insurance. The complainant duly remitted the loan amount and closed the loan account in February 2009. In the meantime on 22-12-2008, the complainant's house bearing No. X/1114 accidentally caught fire and was fully burnt down. The complainant suffered huge loss due to the impact of the fire. While closing the loan account, the complainant came to know that he was holding the insurance policy and accordingly he submitted claim application before the 2^nd opposite party. But the 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the building insured is bearing No. X/1113. In fact, the complainant's building is X/1114. The mistake was crupt in due to the mistake on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get full amount as per the insurance policy together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party:

The loan amount was disbursed to the complainant on different dates upto 26-07-2005 and the same was repaid on 07-03-2009. The house of the complainant was insured for a period from 28-02-2007 to 27-02-2012. The complainant was fully aware of the insurance policy. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable against the 1^st opposite party.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party :

The 2^nd opposite party has not insured the building bearing No. X/1114 A. The alleged fire damage arose on 22-12-2008, but the same was reported to the opposite party only on 06-04-2009. The complainant should have intimated the matter to the 2^nd opposite party earlier as per the terms and conditions in the original contract. Building No. X/1113 was covered by a policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party. On receipt of the claim application, an independent surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. As per his report, the extent of loss is only Rs. 25,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The 1^st opposite party neither adduce oral evidence nor documentary evidence. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The points that came up for consideration are the following :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount as per the insurance policy from the opposite parties?

2. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

6. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. B1 housing loan application goes to show that the complainant himself had submitted the application for loan and he has put his signature in the same. As per Ext. B1, the building No. of the complainant is X/1114 A. So, the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party was negligent in making the application for insurance is untenable.

7. According to the 2^nd opposite party, as per the insurance contract the building insured is building X/1114 A, but as per the police record the building which was damaged due to fire is building No. X/1113. Admittedly, the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party as per Ext. A1 letter dated 01-06-2009. The reasons as per Ext. A1 reads as follows :

“(1) We have issued fire policy No. 761001/11/6/11/00000782 for the period 28-02-2007 to 27-02-2012 covering a residential building identified with door No. X/1113 South Amaravathy, Fort Kochi – 1 whereas the fire damage occurred at residential building with door No. X/1114.

(2) As per the GD extract issued by the Fort Kochi Police the Door No. of the fire damaged building is also X/1114.

(3) The surveyor after physical inspection of the premises has confirmed that the fire damage occurred to building at Door No. X/1114 and no damage is occurred to the building at Door No. X/1113, which is the insured building under the policy.

In the above circumstances, we note there is no damage occurred to the insured building and in respect of the alleged damages to the building at Door No. X/1114, Company is no way liable or responsible to indemnify the loss.

We are therefore closing the matter as no claim.”

8. It is pertinent to note that nothing is on record to show that the damaged building No. is X/1113, the 2^nd opposite party does not have a case that they have duly inspected or verified the building before issuing the insurance policy. Had the 2^nd opposite party duly verified the building No. of the complainant properly this complaint would not have arisen at all which goes to show that there has evidently been a mistake on the part of the 2^nd opposite party which has not been unproved. The Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in United India Insurance Company and Anr. Vs. V. Varghese and Anr. 2010 (1) CPR 198, held that the insurance company is not expected to provide the insurance coverage without examining the goods. The above dictum laid by the Hon'ble State Commission applies in this case squarely wherein the insurance company herein has no case in contra. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant. According to the 2^nd opposite party, they have no liability towards an action which has not been answered for the same reason uncontroverted. This purely goes to show that the 2ns opposite party clearly admits that there had been a clerical or typographical error while compiling the policy. The surveyor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. So we are of the firm view that the complainant is entitled only to get the amount as per the insurance survey report, especially so because the complainant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his contentions regarding the quantum of loss sustained by him further.

9. This Forum is of the view that ends of justice would be met squarely by the amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as assessed by the surveyor as insurance claim together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. No compensation or costs are called for hence.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========