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 30th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 38/08
Between:
B.Rasheed Ahmed, S/o. B. Gulam Hussain, Proprietor, R.R.Timbers,
40/39-2, Bangaru Pet, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company,
40/304, Mourya Inn Complex, Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool-518 001. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.V.Naganjaneyulu, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.K.Muralidhar , Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.38/08.
1 This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.,Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.11 lakhs with interest at 12% p.a, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the case alleging his taking a policy No.051100/ 11/ 06 /11/ 00000721 through his banker from the opposite party on 23-12-2006 for covering the risk of both finished and unfinished timber concerned in his saw mil business for the period 23-12-2006 to 22-12-2007 for an assured amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and the submertion of the said insured property in floods occurred on 22-6-2007 resulting in heavy loss of Rs. 1,60,000/- on the account of wash away of timber sizes stocked out side the business premises and the complainant lodging reports with police and revenue authorities for the loss sustained in said floods and assessed the loss to Rs.3 lakhs based on the value of available stocks from out of the general value of stock stored in the business premises which will be generally of Rs. 10 lakhs worth and as to said stock business the complainant submitting periodical statements to his banker who has advanced huge loan to said business of the complainant. The said floods also damaged the machinery in said premises which is covered under policy No.051100/ 11/ 07/ 11/00000103 dated 28-4-2007 for Rs.7.5 lakhs . Even the surveyor of the opposite party visited and submitted his inspection report the claims of the complainant were repudiated by the opposite party on 25-9-2007 without any lawful excuse.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case denying its liability to the complainants claim filling its written version seeking dismissal of the complaints case with exemplary cost, alleging the complaint averments as invented for the purpose of this case and as no loss occurred the complainant did not pursued the matter with police and revenue authorities and not submitted the required documents i.e, first information report , final report of the police , flood loss certificate from M.R.O., stock register , purchase invoices, sales invoices, delivery challans , VAT report submitted to CTO , audited balance account of profit and loss report up to 31-3-2007 and returns of timber submitted to DFO and inspection report of DFO – for settlement of claim as surveyor report and DFO reply observes no loss of stock the claim was repudiated.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex. A1 to A5 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in eX.B1 to B7 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite parties in repudiation of his claim .
5. The Ex.A1 is a standard fire and special perils policy No. 051100 /11/ 06/ 11/00000721 dated 23-12-2006. It insures M/s R.R. Timbers A/c. No.OCC / C035 covering the risk to saw mill including timber merchant premises where sawing is done i.e., building and stocks of timber like teak wood , rudhraganapu and / or country wood finished or semi finished whilst stored and / or lying in open land or in god owns and occupied as saw mill for the period commencing from 00.00 hours of 23-12-2006 to midnight 22-12-2007 for an assured sum of Rs.3.5 lakshs .
6. The Ex.A2 is another policy of above kind bearing No.051100/ 11/ 07/ 11/ 00000103 issued infavour of complainant for the period covering from 28-4-2007 of midnight 27-4-2008 covering the risk for kind of stocks stated in Ex.A1 policy for an assured amount of Rs.7.5 lakshs.
7. None of the above stated policies covers the risk to the machinery of the complainant saw mill as they cover only the stocks described therein. Hence the claim of the complainant if any for damage to any of his machinery of the saw mill vide ex.B3 being not covered under above policies their repudiation by opposite party remains justifiable .
8. The Ex.A3 is letter dated 25-9-2007 of the opposite party to the complainant repudiating the complainant claim for non furnishing of the required paper and documents in spite of several letters and reminders and withdrawal of the claim by the latter (complainant) and as no loss of stock was observed.
9. The Ex.A4 is the Xerox statement of account of complainant with Andrha Bank standing in the name of complainant’s firm . The sworn affidavit dated 16-5-2008 of the complainant which reiterates the very contentions of the complaint no where alleges the payment made in his business transactions were reflected in the said Ex.A4 statement of account . Nor any persons affidavits were filed by the complainant, who must have received any payments from the complainant in the latters business transactions in purchase of any stocks to have any appreciation of the debit entries of the Ex.A4 statement of account of the complainant. Hence the Ex.A4 stands with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case of the complainant .
10. The Ex.A5 are bunch of borrowers statements of stocks of complainants firm under hypathication to Andhra Bank N.R pet as on 26-1-2007 and 23-2 -2007 & 31-3-2007. Even though they show a stock of round logs of worth Rs.5,17,500, 4,47,000, and 4,08,500/- and sized wood worth Rs. 10,08,000/- 9,53,000/- and 9,60,250/- as on those days respectively. There being any verification and the certification of the concerned bank as to the certifying the existence of said stocks as on the dates , there remain of little relevance for their appreciation and to believe the genuineness the alleged stock position in complainants saw mill as on those dates, apart from the fact of those statements sufficiently earlier to the said occurrence of floods and not reflecting the position of the stocks on or near to the date of said floods .
11. The EX.B6 is a letter dated 16-4-2008 addressed by the opposite party to the District Forest Officer requesting the latter to furnish the timber returns filled by the complainant during the period 1-1-2007 to 31-12-2007 and DFO inspection for enquiry into the claims of the complainant as to the loss of stocks in floods .
12,. The EX.B7 dated 8-5-2008 is reply of DFO to the Ex.B6 . It concludes no loss to the stocks of the complainant as the complainant has not submitted III B formats in proof of loss and persuaded for its inspection.
13. The Ex.B5 dated 12-9-2007 is the survey report made on enquiry into claim of the complainant as to the alleged loss of stocks observes no indication of loss of stock as there is any possibility for opening of the gate without damage to the lock in said flood waters . The digital photographs numbering 28 enclosed survey report in Ex.B6 does neither show any damage to the premises nor envisage of loss of any stock.
14. The complainant alleges as to the said loss occurred to him due to floods , he reported the matter to police as well as revenue authorities . But the complainant neither furnishes to the opposite party during its enquiry on claim of the complainant the material of police investigation and revenue authorities findings as to the loss occurred to the complainant stock in said floods for settling the claim nor during enquiry before this forum those material for their appreciation and to hold any un reasonableness or no justification in the repudiation of the complainants claim by the opposite party.
15. The complainant alleges as to the loss of stock at one juncture of the complaint as Rs.1.6 lakshs and another juncture as Rs.3 lakshs and while both the polices covers the risk to the stocks and premises of the complainants saw mill , the complainant alleging one of the policy covering the risk to machinery and while the stock generally maintained by the complainant were said to be not less than Rs.10 lakhs the complainant obtaining risk coverage of policies for a stock of Rs.3.5 & 7.5 lakhs two times instead of for Rs.10 lakshs , there appears every reasonable doubt on the bondafides of the complainant contentions as to the alleged loss due to floods and his entitle ness for the claim made there on.
16. The learned counsel for the complainant takes the attention of this forum to the decisions of Hon’ble Orissa SCDRC , Cuttack , Hon’ble Bihar High Court, Patna , Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.Visakha Enterprise and another reported in I (2008 ) CPJ 254 , Jang Bahadur Singh @ Dijoy Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2006 Patna Pg 91, and Union of India and another Vs Naresh Bhai Raja Chand Bhai Prajapathi and another reported in III (2006) CPJ 330 ( NC) .
17. The first among them holds that the Insurance Company is bound to indemenfy loss basing on the statement of stocks in godown available with financial bank . But the Ex.A5 being mere borrowers statements bearing any verification and certification of the financing bank of the complainant , the scope of the complainants case is not within the ambit of the decision cited for its applicability to the facts and circumstances of his complainant s case.
18. The second among them holds that the repudiation of claim on mere basis of surveyors report is improper as the insurance company can take assistance but has to apply its independent mind and is not under dictate of surveyor . But in this case the perusal of the Ex.B1 to B7 material adduced on opposite party side discloses that the repudiation of claim is not merely on the surveyors report but also one arrived an appreciation of forest office report and also on account of non furnishement of the relevant required material by the complainant which he would have placed if there is any genuineness in his alleged loss of stocks due to floods . Hence this decision is also of any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case to find any fault with opposite parties conduct of repudiation of complainants claim.
19. The third decision among the above also have any relevancy of its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case as this case of the complainant for repudiation of claim by the opposite party being for want cogent substantiating material and the facts of the case supra stated decision is otherwise as it covers the fraud committed to the deposit of customers who did not demand any receipt in good faith for deposit made in addition to handing over the pass books too in good faith .
20. Hence the conclusion of the above discussion there being any material to hold the bonafides of the complainant’s claim in alleged loss of stocks and there by there being any improper repudiation of complainants claim by the opposite party the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of August, 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. Xerox copy of Policy covering from period 23-12-2006
to 22-12-2007.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of Policy covering from period 28-4-2007 to
27-04-2008.
Ex.A3. Repudiation dated 25-09-2007.
Ex.A4. Statement of account in two papers.
Ex.A5. A bunch of Xerox of borrowers statement dated 26-01-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Letter dated 27-6-2007 complainant to OP.
Ex.B2. Letter dated 25-06-2007 of complainant to Andhra Bank, N.R.Peta, Kurnool.
Ex.B3. Letter of the complainant to OP along with estimation
dated 11-07-2007.
Ex.B4. Claim form (fire insurance) of complainant on 27-06-2007 .
Ex.B5. Survey report dated 12-9-2007 along with photographs.
Ex.B6. Letter dated 16-04-2008 of OP to District Forest Officer,
Kurnool.
Ex.B7. Reply to Ex.B6 dated 08-05-2008.
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 party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
