BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 4^th day of September, 2012

C.C.No.146/2011

Between:

S.A.Hakeem, S/o S.Imam Saheb, Muslim,

H.No.46/86-105-1A,  Kurnool - 518 002.                                    

   …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

1. The Branch Manager,Andhra Bank,Budhawarpeta Branch,

   1^st Floor, Plot No.6, Central Plaza, Budhawarpeta, Kurnool – 518 002.

2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,

   H.No.40-304, Mourya Inn Complex,  Kurnool - 518 004.                                

...Opposite ParTies

.

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Narasimhulu, Advocate for complainant and Sri.G.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri.Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)                                                                C.C. No.146/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1.   To direct the opposite parties to pay the damage charges of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization;

1.   To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant;

1.   To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs;

1.   To grant such other relief or reliefs which the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased a house bearing D.No.46/86-105-1A in Budhawar peta, Kurnool City by borrowing a loan from opposite party No.1 in the year 2006.  He insured his house with M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool under the policy for standard fire and special perils bearing No.051100/11/06/11/00000369.  Due to the floods occurred on 02-10-2009 in Kurnool City, the complainant said house was inundated in the flood water.  The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2.  The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor assessed the loss and filed his report.  The insurance company repudiated the claim as no claim on the ground that the affected location is not covered under the policy.  The complainant came to know that opposite party No.1 negligently mentioned the house number as 46/86-100-1P, Budhawar Peta, Kurnool in the proposal form.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 25-01-2011 to opposite parties 1 and 2 demanding to settle the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, but they did not respond.  Due to the negligent act of opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant suffered mental agony.  There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that opposite party No.1 sanctioned loan to the complainant for purchase of house bearing No.46/86-105-1A, Budhawar Peta, Kurnool and insured the said house with opposite party No.2 by furnishing wrong house number by mistake.  It is not willful and intentional.  It is duty of opposite party No.2 to settle the claim of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that on 02-10-2009 there were floods in Kurnool City.  It is also admitted that opposite party No.2 appointed an independent surveyor.  The surveyor inspected the house and submitted his report.  It was informed by the surveyor in his report that the door number which was insured was 46/86-100-1P and that 46/86-105-1A which was offered to be surveyed.  The policy copy was sent to opposite party No.1 and complainant.  The complainant and opposite party No.1 had not taken steps to rectify the door number prior to the incident.  Hence the opposite party No.2 closed the claim as no claim on the ground that affected location is not covered under the policy.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the first complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B5 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:-  It is admitted that the house of the complainant is situated at Budhawar Peta.  It is also admitted that the complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.1 bank. The insurance company issued the policy bearing No.051100/11/06/11/00000369 under Ex.B1 in favour of the complainant for the period from 2006 to 2021.  The complainant in his affidavit stated that due to flood water on 02-10-2009, the house of the complainant was inundated and completely damaged.  The opposite parties also admitted that on 02-10-2009 due to flood water most of the Kurnool City was submerged in flood water.  Admittedly the surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.2.  The surveyor inspected the house and submitted his report, which is marked as Ex.B2.  In Ex.B2 the surveyor clearly stated that due to the flood water the insured house was inundated and it raised about 8 to 10 feet from the floor.  As seen from Ex.B2 it is clear that the house of the complainant was affected and damaged.

8.     It is the case of the complainant that he obtained house loan for the purchase of house with door No.46/86-105-1A and insured the same with insurance company.  The policy bond was kept with the bank.  The insured house was inundated in flood water resulting heavy damage to the said house.   The complainant made a claim to opposite party No.2 and repudiated the claim under Ex.A1 dated 20-05-2010, on the ground that the affected house is not covered under the policy.  The complainant had no knowledge about the mentioning of wrong door number in the proposal form Ex.B3.  Opposite party No.1 sent the particulars and obtained policy from opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 clearly admitted its mistake in Ex.A4 dated 09-03-2010.  Due to the negligent act of opposite party No.1, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  The complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A2 dated 25-01-2011 and acknowledged the same by opposite parties under Ex.A3.  They did not respond.

9.     The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant obtained loan for the purchase of house, which is marked as Ex.B4.  The copy of registered sale deed is marked as Ex.B5.  Opposite party No.1 insured the said house with opposite party No.2, by furnishing wrong door number.  Opposite party No.1 furnished a copy of sanctioned letter Ex.B4 and sale deed Ex.B5 along with proposal form Ex.B3 to opposite party No.2.  The house number of complainant for which the loan was sanctioned and its boundaries are clearly mentioned in those documents.  Opposite party No.1 addressed a letter Ex.A4 to opposite party No.2 and requested to rectify the door number and settle the claim of the complainant, but opposite party No.2 did not settle the claim.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.

10.    The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 contended that Ex.B1 is the policy issued by opposite party No.2.  The property insured under Ex.B1 policy is 46/86-100-1P Budhawar Peta, Kurnool and not the house in door No.46/86-105-1A.  Opposite party No.1 clearly admitted its mistake in Ex.A4 dated 09-03-2010 that the door number of the house is wrongly mentioned in the policy as 46/86-100-1P whereas the correct door number is 46/86-105-1A.  As seen from Ex.B3 the proposal form opposite party No.1 mentioned the proposed door No.46/86-100-1P.  As per the proposal form the insurance company issued the policy for the said door number mentioned in Ex.B3.  Ex.B2 is the surveyor report.  Admittedly the insurance company appointed a surveyor.  The surveyor inspected the house and assessed the net loss at Rs.22,098/-.  As per Ex.B1 policy copy, Ex.B2 surveyor report and Ex.B3 is the proposal form it is clear that the house of the complainants door No.46/86-105-1A was not insured with insurance company opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 wrongly mentioned the door No.46/86-100-1P in the proposal form.  Hence opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any claim amount under the said policy. It is admitted in Ex.A4 that opposite party No.1 committed mistake and mentioned the wrong door number in the proposal form.  Due to the negligent act of opposite party No.1, the complainant suffered mental agony.  There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complainant could not place any material on record to show that he sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.22,098/- as assessed by the surveyor. 

11.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.22,098/- with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e., 07-06-2011 till the date of payment and further Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the case.  The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 4^th day of September, 2012.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of letter by opposite party No.2 to complainant

                dated 20-05-2010.      

Ex.A2               Office copy of Legal Notice dated 25-01-2011.

Ex.A3                Postal Receipts (Nos.2).

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Acknowledgement Letter dated 09-03-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy bearing

                No.051100/11/06/11/00000369.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Survey Report dated 24-01-2010.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Proposal for Standard Fire & Special Perils

                Policy.

Ex.B4                Photo copy of Sanction Letter dated 27-07-2006.

Ex.B5                Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 31-07-2006.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :