By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case are given below:- The Complainant has acres of agricultural land in his ownership and possession and has been cultivating land on lease and also engaged as tenant in cultivating pepper, coffee and ginger. The Complainant is using the building No. 591 in Muttil South Village, Ward 14 of Muttil Grama Panchayat, which is in the possession and ownership of the Complainant, to store agricultural products, agricultural implements, seeds and related agricultural materials. Different types of floor mats were required and used for the protection of seasonal crops. That building of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No.3005011119P116358492 for the period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021. At the initial stage of the policy, the officials of Opposite Party came to the building which was verified and convinced. After the heavy rains, winds and torrential rains in Wayanad on 27.02.2021, the roof of the building was destroyed and damaged due to the strong winds and torrential rains that hit Wayanad and the above building was destroyed and there was damage. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party Company in writing about the damages caused by natural calamity along with photographs and the Officials of the Opposite Party visited the place and verified the same and then as per the instructions of the officials of the Opposite Party, the Complainant Purchased materials and completed the repairing works including welding and all other related works with the help of labourers at his own cost. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted the bill of the materials, wages of workers, certificate of ownership, certificate received from Muttil Grama Panchayat to show that there was natural calamity and policy bond to the Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted that he had incurred Rs.65,517/- as cost for the above works. When the Complainant submitted the bill and related documents, the Opposite Party gave a vague reply on 28.09.2021. Then, at the end of March 2021, all the documents requested by the Opposite Party were also presented to the office of the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party was not ready to pay the effective amount of the insurance policy. When the Complainant inquired about the matter through phone, the Opposite Party gave lame reasons and excuses and informed that the Complainant would get a small amount. And the Opposite Party sent a letter on 04.06.2021 stating that if the Complainant wants to get a small amount, asked the Complainant to cancel the pass book and to produce check book. After receiving the letter, the Complainant went directly to the Opposite Party’s institution. The Employees of the Opposite Party were angry on the ground that they did not find any agricultural products, crops, seeds, pesticides or fertilizers in the building of the Complainant, which was built as an agricultural warehouse. It has been informed to the Opposite Party that the Complainant was doing coffee prooning as a part of plant management in the coffee plantation and the Complainant has stayed away from lease farming due to the Covid 19 pandemic. No compensation has been paid to the Complainant till the date except collection of the account number of the Complainant. The Complainant entrusted the welding work of the building to one Jamal from Muttil and he completed the work. The Complainant also filed complaint before the DLSA, Kalpetta, but the Opposite Party said that he would pay only Rs.20,000/- and the loss was too much for the Complainant, so the matter was left pending. Hence, this Complaint.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance before the Commission on receipt of summons and submitted their written version. The Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant had taken a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy for the period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021 for the building No.591. The sum insured was Rs.5,00,000/-. The type of construction was Kutcha. The description of risk as per policy was storage of non-hazardous goods subject to warranty that hazardous goods category No.I, II, coir waste, coir fibre caddies are not stored therein (materials stored in godown & silos (4001). The plinth area of the building was 112.5.sqm. The claim and estimate for Rs.64,080/- with respect to damage caused to the building on 27.02.2021 was submitted by the Complainant on 03.03.2021. This Opposite Party appointed the surveyor Ragesh Raghav to assess the damage on the same day. The surveyor assessed the total loss as Rs.33,825/-Hence actual amount payable to the Complainant was computed as Rs.19,942.50/- after deducting 10% of total loss assessed by the surveyor, and depreciation Rs.3,382.50/-. Since the building was aged 4 years. Rs.500/- was deducted towards salvage value and Rs.10,000/-was also deducted as policy excess being 5% of the claim amount subject to the minimum of Rs.10,000/- (as per General exclusion No.1). Hence, this Opposite Party was ready to settle the claim for Rs.19,942.50/-. The Opposite Party admit that they are liable to indemnify the insured/Complainant based on ‘’principle of indemnity’’ that is, insured should be brought back to the position just before the loss and there should not be undue benefit due to claim. Therefore, the depreciation, policy excess and salvage value were deducted out of the actual damage assessed by the surveyor. The Complainant was not ready to accept this amount. Hence, he had approached the District Legal Services Authority with a complaint. The Opposite Party was willing to pay sum of Rs.19,942.50/- before the DLSA. But the Complainant was not willing to accept the amount. Now the Complainant approached the Commission with same prayer without any bonafides. The Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint with cost.
3. On perusal of Complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
4. Point No.1 and 2:- For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are considered together.
The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney holder, examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2 on the side of the Complainant. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A5 series. On the side of the Opposite Party, the Branch Manager of Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and the surveyor appointed by the insurance company was examined as OPW2. The documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2.
5. The Complainant had insured his building No.591, Muttil Village, with Opposite Party for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ext.A2 is the policy issued by the Opposite Party in favor of the Complainant. The said policy was in force from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021. Admittedly while the policy was in force, the building of the Complainant was damaged in the storm on 27.02.2021. After the incident, the Complainant submitted the claim application to the Opposite Party.
6. The Complainant filed this Complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 65,517. Ext.B2 is the surveyor’s report. The surveyor estimated the total loss at Rs.33,825/-. After deducting the depreciation value of the building of Rs.3,382.50/-, Rs.500/- as salvage value and Rs.10,000/- as policy excess. The surveyor assessed net loss at Rs.19,942.50/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, in case of under insurance the insured has to bear proportionate loss occurred. After receiving the claim application, the opposite Party offered to settle the claim for Rs.19,942.50/- by deducting the policy excess, the salvage
7. Here the Complainant produced Ext.A5 series, which are the bills of materials purchased by him. It reveals that the Complainant had incurred expenses for reconstruction of building which came to Rs.65,848/-. So he is entitled to get the above amount after deducting the depreciation value of the building of Rs.6,584/- and policy excess of Rs.10,000/-. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.48,764/-.
8. On perusal of Surveyor Report it is found that there is no proper explanation for the deducting of salvage value of Rs.500/-. Therefore, the deduction of Rs.500/- towards salvage value will not arise in this case. Before the reconstructing of building the Opposite Party offered some amount. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore the Complainant is not entitled to get compensation. At this stage we are of the considered view that it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.48,764/- to the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.48,764/-(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Four only) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant. The order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which said amount shall carry @8% p. a. till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6th day of December 2023.
Date of Filing:-27.04.2022.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Sajid. K. N. Business.
PW2. Muhammed Jamal. Coolie.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Akhil. A. R. Branch Manager.
OPW2. Ragesh Raghav. Insurance Surveyor.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Ownership Certificate. Dt:09.03.2021.
A2. Insurance Policy for the period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021.
A3. Certificate issued by Muttil Grama Panchayath. Dt:10.03.2021.
A4. Letter. Dt:04.06.2021
A5(Series). Bills(10 Numbers).
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Copy of Insurance Policy for the period from 19.03.2020 to
18.03.2021.
B2. Survey Report. Dt:12.04.2021.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
