BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 10th day of November , 2010
C.C.No 134/10
Between:
S.Sivarama Krishna Prasad, S/o S.Sankaraiah, Advocate,
R/o 41/406-E, Kothapeta, Kurnool.
…..…Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,M/s. National Insurance Company,
Dr.No.40/343-A, First Floor, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool.
….…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S Anil Kumar Naidu , Advocate, for complainant, Sri. D.A. Anees Ahamed , Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 134/10
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying
- to direct the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs.3,30,000/- under policy bearing No. 551001/11/04/3100000319 with interest @ 18 % p.a
- to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant
- to award costs of the complainant
- such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant is as under :- The complainant constructed a house bearing No. 41-406-E.Kothapeta, Kurnool in 2004. The complainant obtained housing loan from SBI for the construction of the said house. The banker insured the said house and a policy bearing No. 551001/11/04/3100000319 was issued by the OP. The amount insured under the said policy is Rs.10,00,000/-. On 01-10-2009 there was heavy rain fall and Kurnool town was sub merged in flood water. Major part of the house of the complainant was affected with flood water. Immediately on 05-10-2009 the complainant intimated to the OP about the damage caused to the house. The OP deputed a surveyor for assessing the loss. On 08-10-2009 a surveyor inspected the house. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.40,000/- towards cleaning of the house. He spent a sum of Rs.25,000/- for polishing the flooring. He incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- for replacing the switch boards, sockets etc. He also spent Rs.50,000/- for repairing the house. OP did not pay any amount to the complainant. The claim of the complainant was repudiated stating no physical damage was caused to the building. There was deficiency of service on the part of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The banker paid the insurance premium and obtained the policy. Furniture, fixtures and fittings to the building are not covered by the policy. No physical damage was caused to the building of the complainant. The surveyor submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs.27,270/- .There is no deficiency of service in settling the claim under the policy. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP is filed and RW.2 is marked.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the house bearing No. 41-406 and he obtained loan from SBI, Kurnool for the construction of the said house. It is also admitted that the banker who gave finance to the complainant insured the house of the complainant with the OP for Rs.10,00,000/- and obtained the policy. It is the case of the complainant that there was flood on 01-10-2009 and his house was sub merged in rain water. Ex.A2 is the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool where in it is mentioned that the house bearing No. 41-406 of the complainant was badly affected with flood water on 02-10-2009. It is the case of the complainant that he sustained a loss of Rs.3,30,000/- due to the floods and that the OP failed to pay the said amount even though his house is insured. Ex.B1is the copy of the insurance policy. As seen from Ex.B1 it is very clear that the house of the complainant was insured for Rs.10,00,000/- and that the policy was inforce on the date of the floods. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that there was no physical damage to the building of the complainant and that no amount is payable to the complainant under the policy.
8. Admittedly a surveyor was appointed by the OP. The surveyor inspected the building of the complainant and submitted his report. On behalf of the OP the said surveyors sworn affidavit is filed. The surveyor in his affidavit evidence clearly mentioned there was no physical damage to the building of the complainant due to the floods. The complainant filed Ex.A1 estimation of K. Vijaya Sudhakar, Municipal Licensed Engineer, Kurnool. He estimated the loss sustained by the complainant at Rs.3,30,000/- . He included Rs.40,000/- for removing mud on the ground and also for replacing the doors, windows etc., The surveyor deputed by the OP estimated the net liability of the insurer at Rs.27,270/- . The surveyor took into consideration the damage caused to the doors, windows. As already stated it is the contention of the OP that building of the complainant alone is insured and that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for the damage caused to the furniture , fittings etc., House includes doors, door frames , and windows fitted there in. Simply because there was no physical damage to the house of the complainant it can not be said the OP is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant under the policy. As the flood water entered into the house of the complainant the paintings walls windows and doors must have disappeared. The surveyor took into consideration the loss of paint to the damaged walls .The report of the surveyor must be given due weight by both the parties. The surveyor rightly came to the conclusion that the liability of the insurer is at Rs.27,270/- . The complainant filed Ex.A1 estimate prepared by Municipal Engineer . Complainant has not chosen to file at least the affidavit of the said Municipal Engineer to prove the contents in Ex.A1. As already stated the OP is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.27,270/- as assessed by the surveyor. Inspite of the surveyors report the OP did not choose to pay the said amount to the complainant at an earliest point of time. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
9.Point No3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.27,270/- with subsequent interest at 9% from 20-04-2010 i.e, date of repudiation of claim till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.A1. Photo copy of detailed cum abstract estimation
Ex.A2. Certificate dt:21-11-2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.
Ex.A3. Repudiation letter dt:20-04-2010 by the OP to the complainant .
Ex.A4. Photo copy of letter dt:21-06-2010 addressed by the OP to the complainant
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of policy No.551001/11/04/3100000319.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of fie claim form dt:21-10-2009.
Ex.B3. Photo copy of letter dt:10-10-2009 addressed by the OP to the complainant.
Ex.B4. Photo copy of surveyor report of S.Ramesh Babu,
dt:11-02-2010 .
Ex.B5. Photo copy of letter dt:20-04-2010 addressed by the OP to the complainant .
Ex.B6. Photo copy of letter dt:21-06-2010 addressed by the OP to the complainant
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
