BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER
WARANGAL
Present: Sri Sri
AND
Monday the 26th May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 11/2003
Between:
Gandla W/Age: 61 yrs., Rep.by her
Sri
S/
Occu./Business,
R/o.H.No.22-11-17,
Desaipet,
Warangal.
… Complainant
AND
1. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Warangal.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
: ORDER
::
Sri This is a complaint filed by the complainant i.e. an
amount of Rs.4,95,000/- towards damages of machinery & building and also costs of the C.D.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
01. The complainant is the owner of M/ while sanctioning the said loan had duly insured the assets of the Rice Mill i.e. including machinery and the building with the opposite party No.1 For the coverage of risks and damages etc. The opposite party No.1 had also issued a specific “Fire Policy” vide Policy No.050600/11/13/3249/98 and also renewed from time to time. The sum assured under the said policy was to a tune of Rs.3 As per the terms of the policy the nature and extent of coverage of the policy is as follows.
1) A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards machinery
2) A sum of 50,000/ towards stocks.
Total coverage limit of Rs.3The above said policy was valid from 10-09-1998 to 09-09-1999 due to sudden electric short circuit, the mill caught fire and unfortunately, the entire stock machinery and building were burnt causing heavy financial damage to a tune of Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Later the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the opposite party No.2 wherein the opposite party No.1 casually stated that, the policy was only covering the risk to the building and not for the machinery. Thereafter he issued a legal notice then he filed before this Forum.
02. The case of the opposite parties is that, the arguments of the insurance company counsels with this claim is barred by limitation and there is no policy coverage for the machinery, the policy coverage only for building, since already there is a delay in filing the claim, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation i.e. delay is only two (2) years four (4) months as per the opposite parties counsel.
03. The complainant in support of her claim filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-12. On behalf of opposite party Sri
04. Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- towards damages of machinery and building and also costs of the C.D.
05. After arguments of the both side counsels, our reasons are like this for the above point. This court is conditional order by way of saying The complainant’s Advocate called absent and no arguments advanced from him. The opposite parties 1 & 2 advanced the arguments on the basis of the records available before this Forum. We come to the conclusion that, the complainant has insured only for the building, but not the machinery. As per the complainant contents that, he had availed loan from opposite party No.2 i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad and established Rice Mill in the name and style of M/ while
sanctioning the said loan had duly insured the assets of the Rice Mill i.e. including machinery and the building with the opposite party No.1 persuantly the opposite party No.2 also paid Rs.1,229/- on behalf of the complainant towards insurance premium. For the coverage of risks and damages etc. The opposite party No.1 had also issued a specific “Fire Policy” vide Policy No.050600/11/13/3249/98 and also renewed from time to time. The sum assured under the said policy was to a tune of Rs.3 As per the terms of the policy the nature and extent of coverage of the policy is as follows.
1) A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards machinery
2) A sum of 50,000/ towards stocks.
Total coverage limit of Rs.3
The above said policy was valid from 10-09-1998 to 09-09-1999 due to sudden electric short circuit, the mill caught fire and unfortunately, the entire stock machinery and building were burnt causing heavy financial damage to a tune of Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Later the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the opposite party No.2 wherein the opposite party No.1 casually stated that, the policy was only covering the risk to the building and not for the machinery. Thereafter he issued a legal notice then he filed before this Forum. The arguments of the insurance company counsel with this claim is barred by limitation and further there is no policy coverage for the machinery, the policy coverage only for building, since already there is a delay in filing the claim, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation i.e. delay is only two (2) years four (4) months as per the opposite party No.1 counsel. In this case whether this Forum to decide that whether the policy is covered for building and machinery as per Ex.B-1 it is a Fire Policy as per this it is clearly mentioned the insurance policy coverage is only for building for Rs.3,00,000/- but not machinery. If really the machinery and stocks, stock godown for anything certainly in Ex.B-1 should be mentioned, but in Ex.B- it is shows that the insurance policy coverage only for building, as per the complainant contentions and as per the report of the Surveyor i.e. Ex.B-2 it is clearly that only machinery got fire, when there is no insurance policy coverage to the machinery, the insurance is not liable to pay the amounts for the loss of the machinery. And further the claim is repudiation by the opposite party No.1 on 24-11-2000 from that the complainant has to be file claim petition within two (2) years from the date of repudiation. The District Forum, State Commission or National Commission shall not admit the complaint unless it is filed within two (2) years from the date, which is the cause of Here the cause of action arose on the date of repudiation only, but the complainant filed this case before this Forum on 13-02-2003 i.e. after two (2) years the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum it is a time barred petition. So the complainant filed this case after limitation period only. The complainant he himself admitted in his complaint that, the first party had addressed a letter on 24-11-2000 so it is clearly goes to show from that date only limitation starts because the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim, so when the petition is time barred petition, the insurance is not liable to pay any compensation and further in this case, even though there is a limitation period there for the complaint in filing of this complaint but the insurance policy is only covers to the building as per Ex.B-1 but not machinery for that policy. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the insurance company and more over as per the Surveyor Report i.e. Ex.B-2 the loss in respect of building is within the policy excess limit, so loss is excess limit to insurance is not liable to pay. As per the Surveyor Report it is clear that, there is no effect to the building, the effect is only for machinery but the machinery there is no policy, so the insurance is not liable to pay the compensation to the complainant and further the counsel for the opposite party No.1 cited judgment below:
1998(2) CPR 1 (NC) National Consumer Disputes New Delhi in Captain The United India Insurance .
The above-cited judgment is applicable to the Opposite Party No.1. The present case is also there is a policy covers only for building but not machinery the above cited judgment is applicable to the opposite party No.1.
For the fore going reasons given by us, it is clear cut that, the complaint is time barred and there is no policy coverage to the machinery, so the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and accordingly we answer the point in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
POINT WHAT RELIEF:-
The point No.1 is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant, this point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e. 26th May, 2008).
Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF O.P.
Affidavit of Complainant Affidavit of Opposite Parties
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A- is the Original Power of Attorney, dated 27-03-1984.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Xerox copy of General Power of Attorney, dated 15-
3. Ex.A-3 is the Original Letter to
1999.
- Ex.A-4 is the Xerox copy of letter the Manager, United India
Insurance Co., Ltd., Warangal, dated 28-10-1999.
- Ex.A-5 is the Original letter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
24-11-2000.
- Ex.A-6 is the Original “Fire Policy - C”, from 10-09-98 to 09-09-99.
- Ex.A-7 is Original Fire Attendance Certificate, dated 10-06-99.
- Ex.A-8 is the Original Certificate, of Transmission Corporation of
Andhra Pradesh Limited.
- Ex.A-9 is the True copy of 09-06-1999.
- Ex.A-10 is the True copy of Fire Acceptance Advice.
- Ex.A-11 is the True copy of Legal Notice dated 24-05-2002.
- Ex.A-12 is the Xerox copy of letter to Asst.Accounts officer, GRC
NPDCL, Warangal, dated 14-08-2002.
ON BEHALF OF Opposite parties
1. Ex.B-1 is the Fire Policy – C Schedule, from 10-09-1998 to
2. Ex.B-2 is the Original Surveyor Report given by
Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor, dated 25-09-2000.
3. Ex.B-3 is the Original Legal Notice, dated 24-05-2002.
|
