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
Wedneday the 15th day of December, 2010
C.C.No. 160/09
Between:
Harihara Plastic Industries,Rep., by its sole Proprietor, Venugopal,
S/o A.Chalamaiah,
R/o H.No.66/69, King Market, Kurnool-518 001.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
D.No.40-526,H.D.C.T. Complex, First Floor, Station Road, Kurnool-518 004
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch,
D.No.40/829, R.S.Road, Kurnool-518 004.
……Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. B. Naga Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. Md. Ishaq , Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is called set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.160/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Ops
a) to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- being the loss incurred by the complainant and covered under the policy No.611500 /11/06/11/0000062.
b) to award costs of the complaint.
c) to award Rs.20,000/- for mental agony.
d) to award future interest on the awarded amount
d) and to grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant industry is situated in Industrial Estate , Kallur . At the time of starting the factory in the year 1999 the complainant obtained a loan from OP.No.2 . OP.No.2 insured the plant , machine and stocks with OP.No.1 for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The policy is being renewed from time to time . The main object of complainant is manufacturing of Nandyal Black Pipes. For manufacturing said pipes waste plastic material is being used. The complainant stored waste plastic material in open site annexed to the industry. The complainant used to purchase the raw material from non creditable purchasers on the basis of purchase bills. Due to heavy rains from 21-06-2007 to 23-06-2007, there was overflow of water from Vagu and Hundri river. The flood water came into industrial area and washed out all the raw material that was stocked in the open site of the industry of the complainant . The complainant sustained heavy loss to a tune of Rs. 11,47,000/- . The said fact was intimated to OP.No.2 on 23-06-2007. OP.No.2 intimated the same to OP.No.1. The surveyor Mr. K. Govindaraja Murthy inspected industry and took photos on the request of OP.No.1. The complainant submitted documents with the claim form on 10-08-2007. On 25-04-2008 , OP.No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the surveyor has come to the conclusion that the physical stock value as on the date of loss is more than the closing stock value . The said repudiation is illegal and there is clear deficiency of service on part of Ops .Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.2 remained ex-parte. OP.No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The surveyor Sri. K. Govindaraja Murthy visited the complainants factory premises on 23-06-2007 and submitted his report. No proof of purchasers of raw materials were produced by the complainant before the surveyor. The surveyor noted that the factory of the complainant was nearly 1 to 1 ½ kms away from the vakkeravagu and the water marks on the walls of the complainants factory revealed that flooding water did not enter the factory premises more than 1 feet height . As such flooding away of raw material from the factory premises was not possible. The surveyor concluded that the physical stock value as on the date of his visit was more than the closing stock and he opined that there was no possibility of any loss of stock to the complainant due to floods. Basing on the report of the surveyor the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 25-04-2008. There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1. The sum assured are stocks is only Rs.5,84,000/- . The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4 On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A14 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of the Opposite party No.1 Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 is filed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
respondents/ opposite parties ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed
for?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Point No. 1 & 2 : According to the complainant he was running industry under the name and style Harihara Plastic Industry , that due to floods from 21-06-2007 to 23-06-2007 the flood water entered into the complainant premises and that the stock worth Rs.11,47,000/- was washed away. The complaint is filed against the Ops to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and costs. The complainant to show that OP.No.2 insured the plant , machine and stock relied on Ex.A1 copy of the policy . As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the plant and machine and stock of the complainant were insured with OP.No.1. The policy was inforce from 06-01-2007 to 04-01-2008 . The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that there was flood in the industrial area from 22-06-2007 to 23-06-2007. He also filed Ex.A3 certificate issued by Tahisildar , Kallur where in it is clearly stated that on 22-06-2007 to 23-06-2007 heavy rains received in Kallur town and that Harihara Plastic Industry , Kallur is fully inundated and damaged . There is also evidence on record to show that the complainant informed about damage to the OP.No.1 and that OP.No.1 appointed a surveyor . Ex.A14 is the letter dated25-04-2008 addressed to the complainant by OP.No.1 where in it is clearly mentioned that Sri. Govnindaraja Murthy surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. Admittedly the complainant submitted claim form to OP.No.1 and the same was repudiated stating that the surveyor has come to the conclusion that physical stock value as on the date of loss is more than the closing stock value and that insured does not incur any loss.
7. OP.No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant basing on the report of the surveyor . Ex.B1 is the report of the surveyor. In his report he observed that there was no sufficient proof for the purchase of raw materials except the own prepared purchase bills for the materials purchase from the waste polyethylene scarp sellers who do not maintain the bills . The surveyor did not believe the version of the complainant. He observed in his report that scope of flooding out entire stock was remote and may be small quantity. According to the surveyor the complainant might have suffered loss of some raw material due to floods. Admittedly the complainant was doing business in plastic pipes. The complainant filed Ex.A10 where in it is noted that the value of the stock as on 21-06-2007 was for Rs.14,62,648/-. The complainant did not choose to produce his account books to ascertain the correct value of the stock as on 21-06-2007 . The complainant filed Ex.A8 copy of the balance sheet as on 31-03-2005 attested by the Chartered Accountant where in it is mentioned that the value of closing stock by the end of 31-03-2005 was Rs.5,25,257/- . He also filed Ex.A6 profit and loss account along with balance sheet as on 31-03-2006 . In Ex.A6 it is mentioned that the value of the closing stock was Rs.8,64,710/- . The average value of the stock of the said two years comes to Rs.6,94,983/- . As already stated the OP.No.1 did not dispute about the flood occurred on 22 & 23-06-2007 . In the absence of clear evidence about the value of the stock lost , I think it is just and proper to take into consideration the average value of the stocks available by the end of 31-03-2005 and 31-03-2006. The average value of the stock during the said years was Rs.6,94,983/- . In Ex.B1 report the surveyor valued the physical stock available on the date of his visit at Rs.3,15,610/- . The difference between the average stock value and physical stock value comes to Rs.3,79,373 ( Rs.6,94,983- Rs.3,15,610) . The complainant must have sustained loss of stock of Rs.3,79,373/- . Admittedly the machinery and stock worth Rs.10,00,000/- were insured with OP.No.1 . OP.No.1 did not compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service .
8. Point No.3:. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,79,373/- to the complainant with subsequent interest @ 9% p.a from the date of repudiation i.e, 25-04-2008 till the date of realization along with costs of Rs.500/- . The complaint against OP.No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 Photo copy of Policy NO.611500/11/06/11/00000627 dt.05-01-07. for Rs.10,00,000/-.
Ex.A2. Office copy of letter dt.23-06-07 complainant to OP NO2.
Ex.A3. True copy of certificate dt.03-08-07 issued by the Tahsildar, Kallur for rain fall.
Ex.A4. Letter dt. 25-07-07 issued by OP1 to the complainant.
Ex.A5. Photo Copy of the claim Form.
Ex.A6. Accounts of Total Income for the year 2006-2007 and profit and loss account for the year ending 31-03-2006..
Ex.A7. Accounts of Total Income for the year 2005-2006 and profit and loss account for the year ending 31-03-2005.
Ex.A8. Balance sheet as on 31-03-2005.
Ex.A9. Sale and purchase account from
01-04-07 to 20-06-07 along with letter.
Ex.A10. Stock Details as on 21-06-2007.
Ex.A11. Letter dt. 03-07-2007 complainant to OP-1 about the history of the factory.
Ex.A12. Letter dt.19-07-07 complainant to OP-1.
Ex.A13. Letter dt. 08-08-07 Surveyor to complainant.
Ex.A14. Repudiation letter of OP-1 dt.25-04-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Survey report dt;31-03-2008 of K. Govinda Raja Murthy
along with photos.
Ex.B2. Repudiation letter dt;25-04-2008 issued by OP.No.1
Ex.B3. Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.B4. Photo copy of the survey bill ,dt;31-03-2008 for Rs.11,025/-.
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:
