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

And

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

Monday the 21^st day of May, 2012

C.C.No.66/2011

Between:

Syed Aslam Basha, S/o Late Syed Hussain Mia,

H.No.44-19-A10-2A,Roja Street, Prakash Nagar,Kurnool-518 004.

                                                               …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

   The Canara Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager,Main Branch,

   4-364, Bhagirathi Complex,  Park Road, Kurnool-518 002.          

                                                        ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainants and Sri T.Siva Kumar, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.     

           ORDER

                  (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

   C.C. No.66/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,59,828/- towards the amount spent for repairing the damaged house with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the damage;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for causing hardship and mental agony;

1. To pay the costs this complaint;

1. To pass any other order or orders that are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.   

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant constructed a house in D.No.44-19-A10-2A in Roja Street, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool by borrowing a loan of Rs.7,40,000/- from the opposite party in the year, 2003.  He insured his house with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool, under the policy for floods and other perils bearing No.051100/11/08/11/00000967. After the completion of construction the complainant is living in the said house.  On 02-10-2009 and           03-10-2009 Kurnool Town especially the entire Roja Street and Prakash Nagar inundated due to the over flowed water of Tungabhadra River.  The newly constructed house of the complainant as well as the house bearing No.44-36B in which the complainant previously resided was inundated in the flood water.  The complainant informed the same to insurance company.  The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor assessed the loss and filed report.  The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the affected location is not covered under the policy.  The complainant came to know that opposite party negligently mentioned the house number as 44–36B in the proposal form.   Due to the negligent act of opposite party, the complainant suffered mental agony.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  It is admitted that the bank sanctioned loan of Rs.7,40,000/- to the complainant in the year. 2003.  It is stated that by the time of taking policy, no door number was granted for the new construction.  The proposal form was filled up in the presence of the complainant and obtained his signature. After verification and thorough inspection the insurance company filled up the proposal form and informed the bank the premium installment to be paid to insurance company.  It is the duty of the complainant to inform the door number allotted by the Municipal Corporation both to this opposite party and insurance company by producing tax receipts.  The opposite party requested the insurance company through a letter to reopen the file as the house in door No.44-19-A10-2A for which the loan was granted and the said insured house was damaged in the flood.  But the insurance company did not respond.  It is the duty of the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is 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 party?

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

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS I & ii:- It is Admitted that the house of the complainant is situated at Roja Street in Prakash Nagar. It is also admitted that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.7,40,000/- from opposite party bank and the insurance company issued policy under Ex.B1 and Ex.A10 in favour of the complainant for the year, 2008 to 2009 bearing No.051100/11/08/11/00000967.  The complainant in his affidavit stated that due to over flowed water of Tungabhadra River on 02-10-2009 and 03-10-2009, the house of the complainant was inundated and completely damaged.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 dated 12-11-2009 the copy of the Certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool, where in it is mentioned that the house located at D.No.44-19-A10-2A, Roja Street, Prakash Nagar was badly affected with over flowed flood water of Tungabhadra River on 02-10-2009 and 03-10-2009.  As seen from Ex.A1 it is clear that the entire Prakash Nagar was submerged in the flood water and the house of the complainant was affected and damaged.   

1. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained house loan No.3169 for the proposed house with door No.44-19-A10-2A and insured the same with insurance company.  The policy bond was kept with Bank.  The newly constructed house was inundated in flood water resulting heavy damage to the said house.  The complainant made a claim to the insurance company.   The insurance company repudiated the claim under Ex.A5 dated 26-01-2010 on the ground that the affected house is not covered under the policy.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the complainant had no knowledge about the mentioning of wrong door No. in the proposal form and he came to know about it only after the repudiation of claim that the opposite party clearly admitted its mistake in Ex.A3 dated 02-11-2009 and that due to the negligent act of opposite party, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount under the policy.  Ex.B1 is the policy issued by the insurance company.  The property insured under Ex.B1 policy is Residential Building bearing No.44-36 B, Roja Street, Kurnool.  There is no material on record to show that the house of the complainant bearing Door No.44-19-A10-2A was insured with the insurance company.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party wrongly furnished bearing No.44-36 B Roja Street Kurnool instead of Door No.44-19-A10-2A in the proposal form.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that the bank is not bound to effect insurance and it is liability of the borrower to obtained insurance policy with correct particulars.  In support of his contention the opposite party filed Ex.B3.

1. It is the case of the opposite party bank that the complainant obtained loan for construction of the new house, subsequently after the construction, the door number would be allotted.  It is the duty of the complainant to inform the door number to the insurance company by producing the tax receipts etc.  The bank is not under an obligation as per the Housing Loan Agreement executed by the complainant at the time of taking the loan, it is marked as Ex.B3.  In Ex.B3 it is clearly mentioned that the bank is at liberty and is not bound to effect such insurance at risk. The bank shall not be held responsible for non admission or rejection of claim wholly or in part whether the claim is made by the bank or by the borrower.  It is further under taken by the borrower that he shall himself of his own accord take all steps like initiation of filing claim/furnishing necessary information to the bank and insurance company without being informed the details of loss/damage for any reason what so ever.  In a decision in First Appeal No.272/2010 dated 13-10-2010 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Late Shri Hiralal Jain -Vs- United India Insurance Company Limited and bank of Maharashtra the Honourable National Commission, New Delhi it is held that obtaining insurance policy is the liability of borrower.  Renewing policy is also liability of borrower.  It is simply lawful for the bank and not obligatory of the bank to obtain policy as per the terms agreed.  In view of the terms and conditions of Housing Loan Agreement Ex.B3 the bank cannot be held responsible for repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.  The facts are similar to present case on hand.  In the instant case also as per Ex.B3 the bank cannot be held responsible for any loss.  Taking into consideration all the material on record we are of opinion that opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation under the policy.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

1.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 21^st day of May, 2012.       

         Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nill                For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Flood Certificate of Shop No.44-19-A10-2A

                issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal & District

dated 12-11-2009.

Ex.A2                Photo copy of Flood Certificate of H.No.44/36A issued by

                Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal & District dated 12-11-2009.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Letter by opposite party to Divisional

                Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,

                Kurnool dated 02-11-2009.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Estimation of damaged issued by

 Sri.S.Noor Ahmed, Municipal Licenced Engineer.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Refusal of Claim Letter by Insurance

                Company to complainant dated 26-01-2010.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of A Bunch of Bills issued by Manohar Electrical                Stores, Kurnool.

Ex.A7                Photo copy of Bills issued by Sri Maruti Play woods,

                Kurnool.

Ex.A8                Canara Bank statement of Complainant period from

01-02-2003 to 24-08-2010.

Ex.A9                Office copy of Letter by United India Insurance Company

                Limited, Divisional Office Kurnool to The President District

                Consumer Forum, Kurnool dated 12-12-2011.

Ex.A10       Photo copy of Policy bearing No.051100/11/08/11/00000967.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1                Policy bearing No.051100/11/08/11/00000967.

Ex.B2                Letter by OP to Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

                Company Limited, Kurnool dated 25-05-2010.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Housing Loan Agreement

dated 22-02-2003.

         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               :