BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 6th day of September, 2008
C.C.No. 167/07
Between:
V. Kondanna, S/o. Venkatanna alias Venkataiah,
Shop No.77-199/2-2, Venkatachalapathi Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool .
… Complainant
Versus
The Divisional Manager, M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
Railway Station Road, Kurnool
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao,, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.
P. Ramanajaneyulu, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.167/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay the assured amount of Rs.1,58,300/- for the loss of Rs.1,62,300/- worth of Firewood, Rs.40,000/-towards compensation for mental agony ,cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is running a small Firewood Timber Depot by laying and constructing fencing to his plot, which stands in the name of his wife, to protect the timber, for the past several years, after obtaining loan to loan from SBI Branch , Kurnool. The complainant used to purchase Firewood from one S. Bhaskar of Kallur on whole sale rate and the same was sold on retail basis to various customers. As mentioned in the complaint averments the complainant has purchase firewood on the various dates from S. Bhaskar. To save his firewood from any accidental loss the complainant insured the same under Standard Fire and Special Perils policy for Rs.1,58,300/- by paying premium of Rs.1,936/- and policy bearing No.11-06-11-00000458 was issued covering from 6-10-2006 to 5-10-2007 . On 22/23-06-2007 due to heavy rains and flood waters of Vakkera Vagu and Nagalapuram dam the entire hundry river entered into the complainants plot up to 8 to 10 feet which resulted in loss of entire firewood worth Rs.1,62,200/- . Thereafter, the complainant informed about the loss to the opposite party and submitted his claim. The opposite party oppointed a surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor submitted his report to the opposite party. On 23-7-2007 the opposite party repudiated the complainants claim on the ground that the stocks of firewood were stored in open area / ground without any fencing. But the complainant submits that he stored the entire firewood under protected fencing but due to pressure of flood water the pillors of the fencing also washed away. Therefore, the repudiation by opposite parties is without any basis and amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) carbon copy of firewood transport bill dated 26-6-2007 for Rs.1,62,300/- and (2) repudiation letter dated 23-12-2007 of opposite parties to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex. A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that the complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite party for his shop bearing No.77/199/22 Venkatachalapathi Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District by paying premium of RS.1,725/- for the assured amount of Rs.1,58,300/- and the policy commenced from 6-10-2006 to 5-10-2007 vide policy bearing No.611500/11/06/00000458 . It further submits that the complainant informed the opposite party about the loss of his firewood and the opposite party appointed an independence surveyor to asses the loss and the said surveyor submitted his report stating that the premises which were effected due to floods in which the complainant kept stock was not covered and said premises was an open place and there is nothing to asses the loss to the complainant, as the complainant did not furnish any record with regard to purchase of stock and sales and balance stock to show his loss at spot or later. Hence, the opposite party was constrained to repudiated the claim of the complainant. It further submits that the complainant suppressed the material facts and filed this false case, the complainant obtained the policy for his shop where as the alleged loss has been occurred at the open place in front of a hut without having any fencing or any permanent structure and no record is filed to show that the complainant kept the stock worth Rs.1,62,300/- with in the insured premises, except bare allegation and it is an after thought for trying a chance and created the bills. It also submits that there is no cause of action to file this false case and repudiation of claim is proper and genuine and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and the complainant is not at all entitled to claim any damages of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest and Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- in favour of opposite party.
6. In support of his case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz., (1) computer copy of the policy with terms and conditions and (2) survey report dated 14-9-2007 of E. Mukund along with photos and negatives , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
8. The Ex.B1 is the Standard and Special Perils policy No.611500/11/06/11/00000458 . It insurer Mr. V. Kondanna Glass and Fire Wood Depot at shop No.77-199/2-2, Venkatachalapathy Nagar, NH.7, Kallur, Kurnool , covering the risk i.e, on the stocks of bricks, slabs, and firewood stored in shop for a period commencing from 6-10-2006 to 5-10-2007 for a sum insured to Rs.1,58,300/-
9. The Ex.A2 is the letter dated 23-10-2007 of opposite party to the complainant repudiating the complainants claim , as per surveyor report, the stock of fire wood was stored in open area/ground without fencing and the policy covers stock in shop and also the complainant did not furnish required books of accounts / purchase/ sale bills.
10. The EX.A1 is the carbon copy of firewood transport bill dated 26-6-2007 issued by one S.Bhaskar . In the complaint averments it was submitted that on various dates as mentioned in Ex.A1 the complainant purchased firewood from S.Bhaskar for Rs.1,200/-. Where as, the Ex.A1 is only a firewood transport bill, and nowhere it is mentioned in the said exhibit that the complainant purchased the said fire wood, nor there is any persons affidavit filed by the complainant , who must have received the payments from the complainant in the business transaction as to purchase of firewood vide Ex.A1 . Mere filing of transport bill with entries does not reflect the position of stock on or near to the date of said floods in the possession of the complainant . Hence, the Ex.A1 stands with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case of the complainant.
11. The Ex.B2 is the survey report dated 14-9-2007, who made enquiry into the claim of the complainant as to the alleged loss of stocks, observes the stock of firewood is stored in an open ground with out any fencing and no books of account nor stock is maintained by the insured and in view of non fencing of location, stock books nor proof of purchase, loss of assessment cannot be completed , hence unable to assess the loss. The photographs numbering 8 enclosed to the survey report in Ex.B2 does neither show any fencing to the premises of the complainant nor any shop in the said premises.
12. The complainant alleges as to the loss occurred to him due to floods, but did not furnish any material to support his claim to the opposite party as to the loss occurred to his stock in the floods for settling the claim nor there is any substantiating material on record during the enquiry before this forum, those material for their appreciation and to hold any unreasonableness or unjustification in the repudiation of the complainants claim by the opposite parties.
13. The main contention of the opposite parties in their repudiation is that the premises of the complainant is not having fencing to store stocks of fire wood and no accounts books or purchase proof is produced. But the complainant in his complaint averments submitted that the premises of the complainant having fencing, but failed to prove the said fact by placing any supporting material on record and also failed to produce any accounts books or purchase proof to support his claim. The complainant alleges as to the loss of stock to Rs.1,62,300 but reduced the claim a per policy to Rs.1,58,300/- , in the absence of any supporting material there appears every reasonable doubt on the bonafides of the complainants contention as to the alleged loss due to floods and his entitleness for the claim made there on.
14. To sum up, the above discussions, there being any material to hold the bonafides of the complainants claim in the alleged loss of stock in the floods and there by there being any improper repudiation of complainants claim by the opposite party . Hence, the case of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of September, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Carbon copy of Fire wood Transport bill, dated 26-6-2007 for Rs.1,62,300/-.
Ex.A2. Repudiation letter, dated 23-10-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Computer copy of the policy with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2. Survey report, dated 14-9-2007 of E. Mukund along with photos and negatives.
Sd/- Sd/-
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 :
