Date of filing : 19-09-2011
Date of Disposal : 06-03-2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 8th day of March, 2013
C.C.NO.141/2011
Between:
G.Rama Naidu
S/o G.Kullayappa
M/s G.R.Fruits & Company
Behind D.No.18/415-A1 to A16
Near Sangamesh Nagar
Anantapur. … Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Subash Road
Anantapur. …. Opposite party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Venugopal and Sri C.Sreenivasulu, Advocates for the complainant and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on the both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Preisdent (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- towards damage of stocks and godown, Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditure totaling to a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: -The complainant is a permanent resident of Anantapur and is doing fruits business. The complainant is running his business in the name and style of G.R.Fruits & Company. The complainant insured his fruits godown with the opposite party since 24-03-2003 and in the same way he insured the said fruits godown for the period 29-03-2009 to 28-03-2010 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- including Rs.4,00,000/- for stocks and Rs.1,50,000/- for building under Policy No.051004/11/08/11/00001986. As the opposite party was aware of the risk and hence charged premium accordingly. The opposite party officials periodically inspected and verified the godown accordingly the risk is covered is within the special knowledge of the opposite party. Unfortunately at 00.30 A.M. on 04-12-2009 there was a fire accident due to electric short-circuit and the same was informed to the fire service and Police Department and the Electricity Board. The fire personnel and Police tried their best but could not control flames. Hence the stock and the godown including records were completely burnt in the said fire accident. The complainant incurred a loss of Rs.5,80,000/- in the said fire accident. The same was registered as Cr.No.408/2009 in I-Town Police Station, Anantapur as accidental fire due to electric short circuit. A claim was forwarded to the opposite party on 07-12-2009 by estimating the damage for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- and the company surveyor also inspected. The complainant furnished all necessary particulars to the opposite party. Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party took 1 ½ years time to assess the damages and rejected the claim as false. The action of the opposite party clearly shows that there was negligence in settling the claim and took 1 ½ years period for repudiating the claim. The repudiation by the opposite party has caused lot of inconvenience, mental agony to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party claiming Rs.6,60,000/- with interest.
3. The opposite party filed the counter stating that all the allegations that are made in the complaint are not proved. The opposite party submits that the alleged fire accident due to electric short circuit on 04-12-2009 at about 00.30 A.M. in the business premises of the complainant is absolutely false and it is a make believe affair and in fact there was no such fire accident due to electric short circuit on the said date in the said premises. The opposite party submits that admittedly the complainant has been running the said Banana business on commission basis only as on the date of the alleged fire accident and that the said standard fire and special perils policy issued in favour of the complainant does not cover the risk of keeping/holding the Banana stock in trust or on commission in the said premises as on the date of the alleged fire accident. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged damages. The opposite party further submits that most of the material facts which are available with the complainant are not made available to the opposite party to find out the truth of the claim of the complainant and inspite of repeated requests the complainant has not submitted the books of account and other material documents relating to the alleged fire accident and the complainant has failed to comply with the necessary requirements of the company as required under the terms and conditions of the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Further the opposite party submits that the sheds constructed by the complainant are “ Kutcha” constructions and that the sheds have no independent walls on any side and there was no door number as such and the complainant has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said policy by suppressing the said fact at the time of obtaining the said fire policy and subsequent renewals from time to time. The opposite party further submits that the fruit commission mundy of the complainant i.e. G.R.Fruits & Company was unregistered with the concerned authorities for carrying out the said Banana commission business as on the date of alleged fire accident in the said premises and the opposite party submits that the extent of alleged loss for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- as stated by the complainant in the alleged fire accident on the alleged date is far away from truth and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged damages. Further the allegations of the complainant that the opposite party officials periodically inspected and verified the godown accordingly the risk is covered and that the risk is within the special knowledge of the opposite party and that the godown and stocks including records are completely burnt in the said fire accident and that the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.5,80,000/- in the said fire accident and that the complainant furnished all necessary particulars to the opposite party and insptie of several requests by the complainant, the opposite party took 1 ½ year time to assess the damages and rejected the claim and the action of the opposite party clearly shows their negligent attitude and hence there is deficiency of service are hereby denied by the opposite party. All the above allegations are invented only for the purpose of this unjust complaint and there is absolutely no truth in it. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
2. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant, evidence on affidavit has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B8 documents.
6. Heard on both sides.
7. POINT NO.1: - It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a policy-holder of the opposite party since 2003 and in the same way he insured the said premises for the period 29-03-2009 to 28-03-2010 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- including Rs.4,00,000/- for stocks and Rs.1,50,000/- for the building under the policy No.051004/11/08/11/00001986.
8. The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party was aware of the risk and being charged the premium accordingly and the officials of the opposite party periodically inspected the verified the godown and accordingly the risk is covered. Further, the counsel argued that unfortunately fruits godown met with a fire accident on 04-12-2009 at 00.30 A.M. due to electric short-circuit, which was informed to the fire service, Police and Electricity Department within a few minutes of fire accident. Though the fire persons and Police tried their best to control fire, they could not control the flames and the entire godown and stocks including records were completely burnt in the said fire accident and the total loss incurred in the said fire accident is Rs.5,80,000/- and a case was registered as Cr.No.408/2009 in I-Town P.S., Anantapur as accidental fire due to short-circuit and the claim was made to the opposite party on 07-12-2009 by estimating the damages @ Rs.5,80,000/- and the Company Surveyor also inspected the premises. Further the counsel argued that all necessary particulars were furnished to the opposite party and inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party took 1 ½ years time to assess the damages and rejected the claim as false and the opposite party sent rejection of claim letter dt.28-06-2011 stating that the alleged fire accident due to electric short-circuit on the said date is absolutely false and it is a make believe affair. In fact, there was no such fire accident due to electric short-circuit on the alleged date in the said premises. Further admittedly the complainant has been running the said business on commission basis only and the sheds constructed are ‘kutcha’ constructions and it has no independent walls on any side and there is no Door No. also. Hence the claim was rejected. As the claim was rejected by the opposite party with the above objections, the complainant opted false complaint.
9. The counsel for the opposite party argued that no doubt the complainant has taken policy from the opposite party since 2003 and the above said policy was in force at the time of the alleged incident but admittedly the complainant has been running the said Banana business on commission basis only as on the date of the alleged fire accident and the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy was issued in favour of the complainant, which does not cover the risk of keeping/holding the Banana stocks in trust or on commission in the said premises of the complainant as on the date of alleged fire accident. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation for the alleged damages.
10. The opposite party counsel argued that the original letter dt.14-09-2010 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party, which clearly discloses that the complainant has been running the said Banana business on commission basis only as on the date of the alleged fire accident and that there were no purchases and sales in his business. Further the copy of the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued in favour of the complainant clearly discloses in General Exclusion Condition No.5 of the said policy of the insurance “ This policy does not cover, goods held in trust or on commission. “ Copy of the income tax returns for the assessment year 2009-10 filed by the complainant, which discloses in the Statement of Total Income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’, it is mentioned as “ Business i.e. Banana Commission business.”
11. The complainant has admitted in an unequivocal terms in his letter dt.14-09-2010, which was addressed to the opposite party that he has been running his banana business on commission basis only and that there were no purchases and sales in their business, which clearly shows that he is doing business on commission basis and further argued that as per General Exclusions (a) of the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy in column No.5, the policy does not cover, if the goods/stocks held in trust or on commission . In view of the said exclusion of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, the risk of storing/holding the banana stocks in trust or on commission in the said premises of the complainant as on the date of alleged fire accident is not covered by the said policy of insurance and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages under the said policy.
12. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents, the arguments made by the opposite party that the complainant has made a false claim stating that there was fire accident due to electric short-circuit on the said date in the said premises could not be ascertained as the complainant has not filed any preliminary or final report from the electricity board or the fire service. Further the arguments made by the opposite party that the said premises has no Door No. and there was no pakka building in the said premises can not be considered as the argument of the opposite party is untenable because the said premises was insured by the complainant since 2003 and the same was certified by letter of the opposite party dt.14-07-2011 which is marked as Ex.A4. In the said policy, the address was mentioned as G.R.Fruits & Co., Sy.No.1964 behind 18/415-A1 to A16, Near Sangamesh Nagar, Anantapur, which clearly shows
that knowing well that there is no Door No. they have issued a policy in favour of the complainant.
13. Further the arguments of the opposite party that the complainant had no registration with the Sales Tax and Commercial Tax Department is also untenable as there is no purchase or sale of goods by the complainant. There is no need for any such registration. The arguments made by the complainant that the opposite party has taken 1 ½ years time for estimation and rejecting the claim atlast on 28-06-2011, which is a deficiency of service as the complainant has furnished all the documents, which were available with him and could not furnish other documents, which were destroyed in the said fire accident. The above arguments of the complainant is tenable to some extent as the complainant could not produce the necessary documents as required by the opposite party under the terms and conditions of the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued in favour of the complainant. In the above circumstances though the complainant could not produce necessary documents as required by the opposite party, as they were destroyed in the said fire accident, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation. Though the complainant has filed Ex.A2 document, it only discloses that where the fire accident took place and no persons attended to extinguish the fire but there is no mention of cause of fire accident, hence the cause of fire can not be ascertained. Further, in Ex.A3 original document it is certified that there was a fire accident on 04-12-2009 at 00.30 hours in the premises of Sri M.Krishna Murthy S/o Venkatesulu, Sangamesh Nagar having SC.No.0001063526 meter burnt due to short circuit, hence the tenant M/s G.R.Fruits, Proprietor Rama Naidu, Near Sangameshwara Function Hall, Bangalore Road, Anantapur had fire accident. There is no issuing date in the certificate. Further the same was not submitted to the opposite party at the time of claim as the original itself is filed here. And further there is no any preliminary or final report of electricity board officials with regard to cause of fire accident.
14. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, which is marked as Ex.B1 (a) General Exclusion No.5 “ Loss, destruction or damage or bullion or unset precious stones, any curios or works of art for an amount exceeding Rs.10,000/-, goods held in trust or on commission, manuscripts, plans, drawings, securities, obligations or documents of any kind, stamps, coins or paper money, cheques, books of accounts or other business books, computer systems records explosives unless otherwise expressly stated in the policy.”
15. The citation submitted by the counsel for the opposite party reported in I(2009) CPJ 6 (SC) Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., in which the Supreme Court held that “ Insurance – Contract – Based on offer and acceptance. In contract of insurance rights and obligation strictly governed by policy of insurance – No exception/relaxation can be made on ground of equity.”
16. As the complainant falls under the General Exclusion Condition No.5 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the goods held in trust or commission does not cover under the policy and in view of the above conditions, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
17. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 8th day of March, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 - Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.408/09 of I-Town P.S., Anantapur.
2. Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Fire Service Attendance Certificate issued by the Station Officer,
Anantapur.
3. Ex.A3 - Photo copy of certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, Anantapur.
4. Ex.A4 - Photo copy of complaint given by the complainant to the opposite party dt.07-12-09.
5. Ex.A5 - Photo copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the opposite party.
6. Ex.A6 - Photo copy of repudiation letter issued by the opposite party dt.28-06-2011.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
1. Ex.B1 - Certified copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the opposite
party.
2. Ex.B2 - Photo copy of complaint given by the complainant to the opposite party dt.07-12-09.
3. Ex.B3 - Photo copy of Fire Service Attendance Certificate issued by the Station Officer,
Anantapur.
4. Ex.B4 - Newspaper cutting relating to accident.
5. Ex.B5 - Letter dt.10-08-2010 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s firm.
6. Ex.B6 - Letter dt.14-09-2010 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
7. Ex.B7 - Attested copy of Statement of Total Income relating to complainant’s firm.
8. Ex.B8 - Repudiation letter dt.28-06-2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s
Firm.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
