DISTRICT CO   NSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th day of September 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  01/02/2018

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

CC/18/2018

Sunitha. M

S.J.S. Marketing, Surya Nagar,

Kanjikode, Palakkad - 678 621

Communicative Address :                                    -  Complainant

W/o. Manoharan K.P

Madhavam, Thottinmed,

Chadayankalayi,

Kanjikode West, Palakkad - 678 621

(By party in person only)

                                                                    Vs

1. The Branch Manager

 United India Insurance Company,

 Malabar Fort Office, G.B. Road,

 Palakkad.

2. A.V. Babu

Sueveyor, United Insurance Company,                       -  Opposite parties

Malabar Fort Office,

G.B, Road, Palakkad.

(Opp.party 1 & 2 by Adv.T.Giri)

                                                           O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          The case of the complainant is that she had started an industrial concern namely SJS Marketing which deals with the sales of plastic stationery items for her livelihood.  On 23.12.2016 the entire building and the stock were damaged due to fire from a short-circuit.  She has filed a claim petition before the 1^st opposite party for the damages sustained and the 1^st opposite party after assessing the loss had granted only Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation towards the damages.  The complainant had demanded a compensation of Rs.9,40,000/- from the 1^st opposite party which she submits that it was claimed on the basis of the stock statement purchased, bills submitted before the bank from whom she had obtained a loan.  The 1^st opposite party had denied the claim without examining the true statements and has denied the claim for the reason that there is no space available in the godown for stocking goods for Rs.9,40,000/-.  Moreover the complainant could not produce the stock register and the purchase bills before the surveyor.  The 2^nd opposite party herein who is the surveyor who had assessed the damages had stated that the fire has been restricted in the corridor and the stock kept in the other room were not affected directly and the damages in that area were due to the hit and the smoke during the fire fighting operation. The complainant alleges that the said concern was insured for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- and the compensation awarded by the 1^st opposite party is illegal.  Hence she had approached before the Forum for the redressal of her grievance. 

          Opposite parties entered appearance upon notice from the Forum and filed version stating the following contentions. 

          The opposite party admitted that S.J.S Marketing was insured with the 2^nd opposite party as per policy No.1012001116P1015627 for the period from 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017.  The liability of this opposite party is subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the policy conditions 5% of claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted for each and every claim as policy excess.  This opposite party admitted the fire on 23.12.2016 as alleged in the complaint.  The damages shown in the complaint is without any basis.  There was no loss as alleged in the complaint.  The allegation in the complaint that entire building and stock were damaged are incorrect and hereby denied.  The building of the complainant’s godown functioning only 500 sq.feet area.  The accident was on 23.12.2016 at about 11.35 a.m and the surveyor had inspected the premises at about 5.30 p.m on the same day of the accident.  As per the report of the surveyor, no marks of fire was seen in the hall and wooden roof structure and tiles in that area was found intact.  The corridor was damaged.  The rooms in the building was also intact, but some stocks were partially melted.  The stock of the items kept in the corridors were completely damaged.  As per the personal inspection made by the surveyor immediately after the incident it was found that actual fire was happened in corridor only.   Eventhough the case of the complainant that the fire was due to short circuit, the Electrical Inspectorate report showing that the reason of fire was not due to short circuit.  On that ground this opposite party can repudiate entire claim of the complainant.  Considering the loss sustained to the complainant, and the said godown was conducted by a lady, and building was very old, this opposite party had accepted surveyor’s report and approved the claim of Rs.1,62,000/- as full and final settlement.  The surveyor reported that the complainant had informed that she was not keeping any stock register and most of the sales are doing without any bill.  When surveyor demanded for the purchase bill the complainant informed that purchase bills were kept in the godown were burnt due to fire.  The complainant could not produce any authentic record before the surveyor, and had only produced sales tax return and stock of the items in the premises stated by the complainant is not tallying with sales tax return.  The surveyor found that fire has been restricted in the corridor and the stock kept in the other room were not affected fire directly and the damages in that area were due to the hit and the smoke of the fire and during the fire fighting operations.  Since there was no stock register or purchase bill the surveyor has physically quantified jointly with the insured and listed the damaged items shown in the survey report and costs of each items were taken from available old purchase bill and value of damaged items was assessed as Rs.1,57,185/- and taken 10% additional for completely burnt and melted items which are not able to segregate and quantify and said amount comes to Rs.15,719/- and total loss assessed by the surveyor is assessed Rs.1,72,904/-.  As per the policy conditions 5% of claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted for each and every claim as policy excess.  So in this case Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted from total claim of Rs.1,72,904/- as policy excess.  So the compensation liable by the 2^nd opposite party is only Rs.1,62,900/- and said amount were received by the complainant as full and final settlement.  The allegation in the complaint that there was a loss of Rs.9,40,000/- calculated on the basis of stock statement and purchase bill even to the bank are incorrect and was denied by the opposite parties.  The complainant had admitted before the surveyor that there was no stock register and most of the retail business are without any bill.  The surveyor has not at all arrived in a conclusion that there was no space for storing the goods for Rs.9,40,000/- in the godown as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has not produced any authenticated document to show the actual value for closing stock inventory and purchase value.  The said stock and value are purely imaginary and there was no stock as alleged in the complaint.  The compensation claimed in the complaint is very excessive and without any basis and the 2^nd opposite party has settle the actual loss caused to the complainant and the complainant had received the said amount as full and final settlement without any objection.  Hence the complaint had to be dismissed. 

          Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits.  Exts.A1 to A11 was marked from the part of the complainant.  Ext.B1 to B4 were marked from the part of opposite party.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

          We have heard the complainant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.  It is not in dispute that complainant’s concern namely S.J.S Marketing was insured and got damaged as a result of fire which occurred on 23.12.2016.  The controversy involved in the matter is in respect of the assessment regarding the extent of damage.  The allegation in the complaint is that the entire building and stock were damaged and he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.9,40,000/-.  As per the report of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party, no marks of fire in the hall and wooden roof structure and tiles in that area were found intact.  The corridor was damaged.  Some stocks were partially melted.  The stock of the items kept in the corridor were completely damaged.  As per the personal instruction made by the surveyor immediately after the incident it was found that actual fire was happened in corridor of the building only.  Considering the loss sustained to the complainant and the said godown the opposite party has accepted the surveyors report and approved the claim of Rs.1,62,000/- as full and final settlement.  The surveyor has also reported that the complainant informed him that she was not keeping any stock register and that purchase bills which were kept in the godown were burned due to fire.  The complainant could not produce any authentic record for the stock of goods and purchase of goods either before the surveyor or before the Forum.  The complainant has only produced sales tax return and stock of the items in the premises stated by the complainant was not tallying with sales tax return as per the survey report.  The surveyor has found that fire has been restricted in the corridor and the stock kept in the other room were not affected directly and the damages in that area were due to the hit and smoke of the fire and during the fire fighting operations.  The surveyor has listed the damaged items shown in the surveyor report and cost of each items were taken from available old purchase bill and value of damaged items was assessed as Rs.1,57,185/- and taken 10% additional for completely burned and melted items which are not able to segregate and quantify and said amount comes to Rs.15,719/- and the total loss assessed by the surveyor is assessed as Rs.1,72,904/-.  As per the policy condition 5% of the claim amount subject a minimum of Rs.10,000/- is to be deducted for each and every claim as policy excess.  Hence the compensation liable by the 2^nd opposite party was only Rs.1,62,900/- and the said amount was received by the complainant as full and final settlement.  The amounts shown in the complaint for closing stock inventory and purchase value (Ext.A2 &A3) are without any authenticated document and the evidentiary value of those document cannot be considered.  The said stock and value are purely imaginary and the veracity of those documents cannot be taken into consideration.  Moreover our National Commission has observed in CPJ 2012 1420, CPR 2012 131, LAWS (NCD) 20121, NCDRC 2012 that the surveyors report is an important document and the same cannot be ignored without any cogent and convincing evidence contrary to it.  It is a well settled law that the report of the surveyor appointed under the provisions of Insurance Act has to be given greater importance.  Hence, according to our view the report of the surveyor appointed under the provisions of law is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. 

          From the above discussions we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove the allegations stated in the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed without cost. 

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of September 2018.

                                                                                                         Sd/-

    Shiny.P.R

                      President 

                            Sd/-   

                                Suma.K.P

    Member

                           Sd/-

         V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                     Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 series -  Photographs of the damaged plastic items

Ext.A2          -  Photocopy of annual stock report

Ext.A3 series -  Photocopy of monthly sales tax return details

Ext.A4          -  Photocopy of surveyor list

Ext.A5          -  Photocopy of bank letter dated.05.12.2017

Ext.A6          -  Photocopy of loan application sent by complainant to the Manager, Andra

             Bank, Kanjikode dated.04.02.2016

Ext.A7          -  Photocopy of policy details

Ext.A8          -  Photocopy of annual sales tax return for the year 2015-16

Ext.A9          -  True copy of the letter issued by bank to the complainant dated.18.07.2017

Ext.A10- Sales Tax Voice Magazine for the month of April 2018

Ext.A11- Photocopy of property sale advertisement photo

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 -  Survey report dated.07.08.2017  issued by 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st  

             opposite party

Ext.B2 -  Photographs taken by the surveyor

Ext.B3 -  Report of Electrical inspectorate dated.17.01.2017

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

          Nil