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
Friday the 29th day of October , 2010
C.C.No 31/07
Between:
Annapureddy Venkatarami Reddy, S/o Seshi Reddy,
H.No. 25/428/2, Opp. Danielpuram Gate, R.S. Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ... COMPLAINANT
Vs
1) The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
P.B. No. 45, 40-439, R.S. Road, Kurnool.
2) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
N.K. Road, Nandyal. ... OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M. Krishna Reddy ,Male Member )
C.C. No. 31/07
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying a direction on OPs to settle the claim of the petitioner under policy No.051102/11/02/00/137 with 12% p.a interest from the date of rejection of the claim and cost of the petition.
2. The synopsis of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is residing in D.No.25/428/02 of AVR Complex, Nandyal. He insured the building for 4 lakhs under policy No. 051102/11/02/00/137 towards standard fire and special perils with United Insurance Company Limited for the period from 24-04-2002 to 23-04-2012 by paying a premium of Rs.1,470/- . The AVR complex has three portions in the ground floor and one portion on the 1st floor. In the ground floor, the south east portion was let out to Raghu Exide point , and the remaining two portions were used by the complainant for residential purpose. The 1st floor was also given for rent to Sri. G.N.Prasad from 2004. At about 6-00 P.M on 02-02-2005, the building caught fire in the Raghu Exide point due to electrical short circuit. The fire was put off by the fire brigade with in 15 mt of intimation. In the fire accident the building got damaged and the damage was estimated by M.Nagi Reddy an approved valuer of SBI to Rs.50,000/- . The complainant made an application to Ops for the payment damages attaching necessary documents. But the Insurance Company not enquiring the case properly repudiated the claim. Aggrieved by the attitude of OPs, the complainant filed a case before the forum, claiming compensation under different heads.
3. Documents marked as Ex.A1 to A11 and sworn affidavit are filed by the complainant to support his case.
4. Pursuant to the receipt of the notice of this forum, the OPs contested the case by filing written version through their counsel denying their liability to the complainants claim.
5. The abridgement of joint written version of OPs is that the OPs admit the insurance of residential building of complainant bearing D.No.25/428/02 for 4 lakhs by paying premium of Rs.1,470/- covering the period from 24-04-2002 to 23-04-2012 with them under policy No. 051102/11/02/00/137. After the fire accident to the building, the complainant and the manager –SBI – Nandyal wrote to OPs requesting them to settle the claim submitting fire accident certificate from fire officer, photo copy of FIR of II town P.S.Nandyal, building damage estimate for Rs.50,000/- prepared by M. Nagi Reddy , licensed Valuer , Insurance Policy , and photos of fire accident premises in response to the complainant letter. The OPs deputed Sri. M.R.Sreenivasan, the surveyor ,on 11-05-2005 to asses loss and submit his report simultaneously sending a claim form to the complainant. Mr. R.Sreenivasan submitted his report dated 28-03-2005 in which it is inferred that the residential building was constructed in the year 2002, later the complainant added the constructed shopping complex in the year 2004, the fire accident took place in the shopping complex which is situated at 50 ft away from the residential building. The loss occurred to the commercial complex which is not insured. Considering all aspects , the claim of complainant was repudiated on 07-06-2005 by OPs. Hence there is no deficiency of service.
6. OPs filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to B6 to substantiate their case.
- Hence the points for consideration are
- whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of OPs sustaining its liability to the complainants claim.
- What is the quantum of compensation than can be awarded to him.
8. Point No.1:- Having perused the contentions of both the counsel and documents placed on record, it is accepted that there is no dispute on the point that the complainant insured residential building bearing No. 25/428/2 with OP.No.2. Ex.A9 is the policy covering the risk of the building damages towards standard fire and special perils. It is also agreed that fire accident occurred in Raghu Exide point of AVR complex , of the above door number. Ex.A3 is the fire service attendance certificate and Ex.A7 the FIR No.22/05 of II town P.S Nandyal ,confirm the fire accident in Raghu Exide point . The dispute is the applicability of the above mentioned insurance policy to the fire affected building. Ex.A3 and A7 support that fire accident occurred in a shop (non residential area) called Raghu Exide point of AVR complex of D.No. 25/428/2. The details in the estimate of building damages prepared by M.Nagi Reddy, Consultant Engineer and approved valuer to SBI also discloses that the fire affected building is non residential. Ex.B4 the fire survey report of Mr. R.Sreenivasan, surveyor reports that , fire accident occurred in a shop (non covered by insurance) and the insured building is 50 ft away from the shop in the same premises. The deposition of M.R. Sreenivasan as RW-1 also ascertains the content of the above repot. But the contention of the complainant that the building that suffered fire accident is residential and covered by insurance was not supported by any reasonable evidence. Hence the complainant filed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
9. Point No.:-2 For the reasons set out above, the Forum holds that the complainant is not entitled to receive any compensation. Hence the rejection of the claim of the complainant is tenable.
10. 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 29th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :
RW.1 Deposition of Rw-1
dt.24-09-2010
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Rejection letter from respondent
dt.07-06-2005.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Policy No.051102/11/02/00137 policy particulars and copy issued by respondents.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of Fire Service Attendance certificate,
dt.05-02-2005.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of Fire Insurance Claim Form, Dt.26-02-2005.
Ex.A5. Photo copy of Estimation
Ex.A6. Photo copy of Without Prejudice, dt.11-02-2005.
Ex.A7. Photo copy of FIR NO.22/05 dt.04-02-2005, of II town P.S. Nandyal.
Ex.A8. Photo copy of Policy No.051102/11/02/00137 policy particulars and copy issued by respondents.
Ex.A9. Policy No. 051102/11/02/00137 Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy.
Ex.A10. Letter dt.08-02-2005 of State Bank of India, Nandyal.
Ex.A11. Letter dt.09-02-2005 of complainant to United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nandyal.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Letter dt.11-02-2005 Without Prejudice.
Ex.B2. Fire Insurance Claim Form, dt.26-02-2005.
Ex.B3. Office copy of letter dt.14-03-2005 of United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Nandyal.
Ex.B4. Fire Survey Report dt.28-03-2005 of R.Srinivasan, along with photos.
Ex.B5. Fire Claim Note of Branch Office, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Nandyal.
Ex.B6. Without Prejudice letter dt.07-06-2005.
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 :
