BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 27th day of October, 2017
F.A.8/2017, F.A.9/2017 & F.A.10/2017
FIRST APPPEAL No.8/2017
U. Kathavarayan @ Mahalingam,
S/o Uthukattan,
No.24, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Veerampattinam, Puducherry. ……… Appellant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.24/2013, dt.10.03.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.24/2013
U. Kathavarayan @ Mahalingam,
S/o Uthukattan,
No.24, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Veerampattinam, Puducherry. ……… Complainant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Opposite Party
FIRST APPPEAL No.9/2017
R.Pothiraj, S/o Ramasamy,
No.184, Tsunami Nagar,
Moorthikuppam, Pudukuppam,
Manapet P.O., Puducherry. ……….. Appellant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.27/2013, dt.10.03.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.27/2013
R.Pothiraj, S/o Ramasamy,
No.184, Tsunami Nagar,
Moorthikuppam, Pudukuppam,
Manapet P.O., Puducherry. ……….. Complainant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Opposite Party
FIRST APPPEAL No.10/2017
P.Sumitra, W/o Pavadaisamy,
No.24, Muthumariamman Koil St.,
Chinnakalapet,
Puducherry. ……… Appellant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.28/2013, dt.10.03.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.28/2013
P.Sumitra, W/o Pavadaisamy,
No.24, Muthumariamman Koil St.,
Chinnakalapet,
Puducherry. ……… Complainant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Nehru Street,
Puducherry. ………. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT IN ALL THE APPEALS:
Tvl. R. Ka.Premcoumar & P.Narayanan,
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE APPEALS:
Tvl D.Ravichandran,
Advocate, Puducherry.
C O M M O N O R D E R
These appeals are preferred by the complainants against the order of the District Forum, Puducherry, dt.10.03.2017 made in C.C.No..24/2013, C.C.27/2013 and C.C.28/2013 respectively.
2. The complainants before the District Forum are the appellants herein and the opposite party thereon is the respondent herein. The complaint in C.C.24/2013 is the appellant in F.A.8/2017, the complainant in C.C.27/2013 is the appellant in F.A.2017 and the complainant in C.C.28/2013 is the appellant in F.A.10/2017.
3. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum.
4. The appeals F.A.8/2017 and F.A.10/2017 are filed claiming interest on the amount awarded by the District Forum, though the appeals have been preferred claiming higher compensation. As far as F.A.9/2017 is concerned, the appellant therein has claimed higher compensation and also interest on the amount that has been awarded by the District Forum and to be awarded herein.
5. The case of the complainants before the District forum was that they are the owners of the fishing boat which have been insured with opposite party. They have been damaged during Thane Cyclone. Therefore, they claimed the insurance amount. A sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs have already been paid by the Govt. of Puducherry as a welfare measure and citing the same, the opposite party refused to make payment to the complainants. Hence, the complaints before the District Forum.
6. Reply version has been filed on behalf of the opposite party wherein it is stated that it has addressed a letter, dated 25.04.2012 to the Director of Fisheries, Government of Puducherry that the complainants had taken insurance policy with it. Basing on the said letter, the Govt. of Puducherry, released a sum of Rs.4.50 lakhs to each of the complainants. The complainants also executed a letter to the opposite party stating that they will not claim the insurance amount from them. It has been further stated in the reply version that there cannot be any dual payment.
7. The District Forum held that the complainants are consumers and in F.A.8/2017 awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards insurance claim for the damage caused to the boat due to Thane Cyclone, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. In F.A.No.10/2017, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards insurance claim for the damage caused to the boat due to Thane Cyclone, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. In F.A.No.9/2017, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,53,675/- towards insurance claim for the damage caused to the boat due to Thane Cyclone, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
8. As stated already, in F.A.8/2017 and F.A.10/2017, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimanats claim only interest for the amount awarded and in F.A.9/2017, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant therein is claiming enhanced compensation and interest for the same.
9. We have gone through the entire pleadings, the evidence recorded and the documents filed by both the parties. We also heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent.
10. Admittedly, after the orders of District Forum, the opposite party settled the amount to the complainants. However, the counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that since the Govt. of Puducherry has paid the amounts to the complainants, it need not pay any insurance claim to the complainants. The very same point was taken by the opposite party before the District Forum. However, the District Forum found that the claim of dual payment or double payment by the opposite party do not arise. The District Forum dealt with the matter in proper perspective and held that there is no question of dual payment. In our considered view, the said stand taken by the District Forum requires no reconsideration at our end. As a welfare measure, the Govt. of Puducherry has paid Rs.4.50 lakhs to each of the persons whose boat has been damaged in Thane Cyclone. However, that will not stand in the way of the complainants claiming compensation from the opposite party since they have insured their boats with the opposite party. It is not the case of the opposite party that the boats were not damaged. Therefore, in our considered view, claiming compensation from the opposite party for the boat that have been damaged in the Thane Cyclone cannot be considered as dual payment or double payment. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainants since they have taken the policy from the opposite party and the boats owned by them suffered damage due to Thane Cyclone.
11. One more aspect that has to be seen is that though such stand was taken by the opposite party, they have settled the amount in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties having settled the amounts to the complainants, cannot urge that in view of the payment made by the Government of Puducherry, there is no necessity for the opposite parties to settle the insurance claim to the complainants. Therefore, now the only question that arises for consideration by us in Appeals No.8/2017 and 10/2017, is whether the complainant therein are entitled to interest as claimed by them in the appeal. In our considered view, since the opposite party did not settle the amount due to the complainants in time, it is liable to pay interest to the complainants from the date of claim. In fact, though the complainants sought for interest for the amount payable by the opposite party, the District Forum has not granted the said relief. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the District Forum for not awarding interest. Therefore, we are of the view that all the complainants are entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of their claim till the filing of complaint before the District Forum. Thereafter, interest at 6% p.a. payable by the opposite party from the date of complaint till the payment is made by the opposite party. The said amount shall be payable within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till final payment.
12. As far as Appeal 9/2017 is concerned, as we stated already, the claimant therein, claims enhanced compensation. Mainly, three grounds have been raised by the counsel for the appellant. Firstly, the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs for repairing the boat as per Ex.C26, which has not been taken note of by the District Forum. Secondly, it is contended that the District Forum ought to have rejected the final report of the surveyor and the bills filed by the complainant for the expenses incurred by it ought to have been taken into account. Thirdly, it is contended that the appellants have not furnished preliminary report nor final report to the complainant. In our considered view, the bank loan obtained by the complainant from Syndicate Bank will not cloth the complainant to get damages for the said amount from the opposite party. Further, that itself will not prove that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for repairing the boat. As far as the other ground is concerned, the claimant, no doubt, has filed certain bills showing certain amount that have been incurred by the complainant for repairing the boat. As rightly held by the District Forum, the authors of the documents Exs.C14 to C23 have not been examined as witnesses. Therefore, citing those documents, the complainant cannot get compensation. The quantum of damage cannot be assessed basing only on those documents. The District Forum has rightly held that though the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.8,29,011.25, he is entitled to only a sum of Rs. 2,53,675/- towards insurance claim for the damage of the boat caused due to Thane Cyclone; Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Further, it has to be seen that the final report has been filed by the complainant himself and it has been marked. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the complainant that preliminary and final report was not furnished to the complainant may not be much relevant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the District Forum after considering the overall circumstances and the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, has taken a correct decision.
13. However, as we have already held in F.A.8/2017 and F.A.10/2017, the complainant herein also is entitled to the same interest which have been awarded in favour of the appellants therein.
14. In fine, the appellants in these appeals are
(a) entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim till the filing of the complaint before District Forum,
(b) thereafter, the appellants are entitled to interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of order,
(c) the said amounts shall be payable within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till final payment,
(d) the appellant in F.A.9/2017 is not entitled to any enhanced compensation apart from the interest payable to him as aforesaid and
(e) no cost in this proceedings
15. Thus, these appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2017
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
