DATE OF FILING :01.10.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.207/2010
Between
Complainant : N.P. Chacko S/o Punnoose,
Puthiyakunnel(Nellikkuzhiyil) House,
Mrala P.O, Muttom,
Thodupuzha – 685 587,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
IV Floor, Pathayapura,
Near Ragam Theatre,
Round South, Thrissur - 1.
(By Adv: Thomas Sebastian)
2. Mr.George Joseph,
Managing Director,
Geo Gas,
Olamattom P.O,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sijimon.K.Augustine)
3. The Public Relation Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation,
Ambalamugal P.O,
Ernakulam.
(By Advs: C.S.Dias & Lissy M.M)
4. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divsional Office,
Thrippunithara P.O,
Ernakulam.
(By Adv: K.Pradeepkumar)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is the registered owner of Building No.K/II 199 of Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath and he is the owner of the property belongs in which the building is situated. On 9.05.2009 at about 12.42 p.m, the building of the complainant was completely damaged due to a fire accident caused because of the leakage of gas from the LPG cylinder. The said building was possessed by a tenant named one Mr.Chackochan with his relative Salomi and her children. At the time when the fire was occurred there was nobody at the house. Intimation was given to the Fire Force and Police by his neighbours over phone and the Karimkunnam police and the Fire Force put off the fire. The residential building, all furniture and other things inside the house were completely damaged due to the fire. The loss was assessed by an Engineer deputed by the complainant, which comes Rs.2.70 lakhs for the construction of the new building. After the occupation of the tenant on 1.09.2006, they have applied for a domestic LPG connection with the copy of the lease agreement to the agency named Geo Gas Agency of the Indian Oil Corporation and a connection was issued by them as Consumer No.23376 on 10.05.2007. So the tenants were using the same on that day onwards. When the Fire Force approached at the spot of the accident, they have pumped water in the kitchen part of the building and after put off the fire they have removed the gas cylinder from the spot. The staff of the 2nd opposite party sealed the regulator of the gas cylinder by using washing soap and the said cylinder as Sl.No.571959-J was entrusted to the gas agency on 10.05.2009. There was a policy existing in the name of the 2nd opposite party who is the Managing Director of the gas agency from the United India Insurance Company Limited, Thrissur Branch as Policy No.100606/46/08/22/00000096. So an application was given to the United India Insurance Company Limited, Thrissur Branch on 20.05.2009 by the owner of the building as complainant. But it was not allowed by the opposite parties stating that they are not liable to issue the policy amount. As per Section VII b(ii) of the policy schedule, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. A registered notice was also issued by the complainant on 29.03.2010 demanding the amount within 30 days. But the opposite party never turned up. So this complaint is filed for getting a compensation of Rs.2.70 lakhs, fee for the inspection of the Engineer as Rs.1,000/- and expenses incurred for getting the certificates which is Rs.3,000/- from the opposite parties. Originally the petition was filed against the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. Again it was amended by impleading the 3rd and 4th opposite parties as additional opposite parties.
2. In the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is stated that they have issued a LPG Dealers Package Policy to cover accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees. Since the alleged accident took place not while being installed by the insured under his employees, the said policy does not cover the complainant's claim. It is the duty of the 2nd opposite party to inform M/s.Indian Oil Corporation about the damages due to fire to the complainant's building and instruct the complainant to file claim against the insurance company which issued policy to M/s.Indian Oil Corporation to cover public liability. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant's building caught fire due to the leak of cooking gas is not correct. The opposite party has issued a LPG Dealers Package Policy No. 100606/46/08/22/00000096 to Mr.George Joseph, the 2nd opposite party for coverage of fire, burglary and public liability subject to terms and conditions contained in the said policy. As per the conditions of the above said policy, the claim of the complainant is not covered by the above said policy. The provisions under Section I in the condition of policy have no application in this case since the property lost by fire was not owned by the insured and accident took place not in the premises of the insured. As per Section VII(Public Liability) in the conditions of the policy, the Ist opposite party(insurer) is liable to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees. So these conditions have no application in this case. The allegation of the complainant that an amount of Rs.2.70 lakhs is necessary for the reconstruction of the damaged building is not correct. The loss incurred by the complainant for the damages to the building by fire is only Rs.1,15,000/-. On intimation, the Ist opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the damages to the building by fire. The surveyor assessed that the complainant has suffered a net loss of Rs.1,15,000/- and the same is needed for reconstruction of the building. If the Forum finds that the Ist opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant, this opposite party is liable to pay only Rs.1,15,000/-, the loss assessed by the surveyor. The claim of the complainant is not covered by LPG Dealers Package Policy issued by the Ist opposite party. So there is no deficiency on the part of the Ist opposite party.
3. As per the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, it is stated that the accident occurred due to leakage of gas from the LPG cylinder is not correct. It is true that one Chackochan S/o Mathai availed a gas connection from this opposite party. The averment that there was nobody at the time of accident was not correct and not believable. Without a source, there is no chance for a fire and fire accident. As per the regulations and directions given to the consumers along with the gas connection, it is clearly stated that the consumers are expected to keep the cylinder and regulator closed when not in use. This direction is given to the customers only to avoid calamities. If the regulator and cylinder is keep closed when not in use, there will not be any accident. Only negligence of the consumers who are using gas connection lead to fire accidents and for the negligence of the gas consumers this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. The opposite parties sealed and collected the damaged gas cylinder from the spot is not correct. The matter was intimated to this opposite party subsequent to the incident. The gas consumer has handed over the sealed regulator and other items to this opposite party subsequently as the remains of the accident. There is nothing to suggest that the accident occurred due to the leakage from the gas cylinder. The incident has occurred only due to the negligence of the resident and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. This opposite party has a valid third party insurance policy with the Ist opposite party and if at all any amount is liable to be paid to the petitioner the Ist opposite party is liable to indemnify this opposite party and is liable to pay the compensation.
4. As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, it is stated that there is no allegation raised in the complaint against the 3rd opposite party. All Liquified Petroleum Gas cylinders manufactured and sold by the 3rd opposite party are insured with the 4th opposite party, the National Insurance Company Limited, who alone is legally liable to indemnify any alleged loss and consequential compensation or damages caused to the complainant out of the alleged accident. On the inspection conducted by T.Ezhilarassan, Deputy Manager(LPG-Sales Field), Ernakulam of the opposite party, it was seen that the complainant's tenant Sri.Chackochan, who is the consumer, who was sparingly used the LPG cylinder in violation of the guidelines, that is by using alternative fire wood in the same kitchen for cooking. It is only because of the misuse of the alternative energy, which was not completely put off, that the fire occurred and as a result of which there was leakage and consequential fire. Hence the complainant's tenant, the customer is guilty for the negligence and the accident that has occurred and only he is liable to compensate the complainant's alleged loss and claim for compensation. The complainant has not lodged any complaint with the opposite party. It is on the basis of the information received from the opposite party's distributor that an officer from the concerned department of this opposite party was deputed to the place of occurrence and an LPG Accident Report was prepared. The alleged fire that had taken place in the house could have easily been averted and the complainant's tenant used the alternate cooking method, that is, firewood in a separate place other than in the same kitchen, where LPG cylinder and stove was being used. So the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant because the 4th opposite party who is legally liable to indemnify any loss that has been allegedly caused to the complainant, but for which there is no prayer in the complaint or any relief sought as against this opposite party. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
5. As per the written version filed by the 4th opposite party, the complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party. The 4th opposite party admits that they had an insurance contract with the 3rd opposite party for covering the liability mentioned in the policy, vide Policy bearing No.251100/46/09/9500000002 for the period 22.04.2009 to 21.04.2010. As per the contract of insurance the maximum liability to property damage per event is limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount as per clause 11 of the policy, Rs.10,000/- is compulsory excess, which the insured bound to pay. So the net liability if any under the policy is Rs.90,000/-. In this connection it is submitted that another claim is filed before this Forum as CC No.208/2010 for the same incident. The claim of the complainant that he sustained a loss of Rs.2,74,000/- due to the fire incident is highly exaggerated and baseless. As per the contract of insurance, claim if any should be filed within 12 calendar months from the date of loss. In this case no claim is made within the time prescribed in the policy. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
6. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
7. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P20 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R7 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
8.As per the joint application filed by the complainant and the opposite parties, C C No.207/2010 and CC No.208/2010 were tried together and evidence of both cases were taken together.
9. The POINT :-The complainant produced evidence as PW1. PW1 is the registered owner of residential building No.K II/199 of Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath. On 09.05.2009 at about 12.42 p.m, the building was completely destroyed by fire because of the leakage of LPG gas. The building was in possession of a tenant named one Mr.Chackochan, Cherunilathu House. But at the time of accident nobody was there. The building was fully destroyed due to fire and a loss of Rs.2,70,000/- was assessed by the Engineer who was deputed by the complainant himself. A claim was filed by the complainant to the Ist opposite party, copy of which is marked as Ext.P1. It was received by the Manager of the company, the AD card is marked as Ext.P2. A policy is existing in the name of the 2nd opposite party with the United India Insurance Company Limited as LPG Dealers Package Policy as policy No.100606/46/08/22/00000096, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P3. The fire force of Thodupuzha Fire & Rescue Station immediately arrived at the spot and the fire was put off. A report with certificate was filed by the Station Officer of the Fire & Rescue Station, Thodupuzha,which is marked as Ext.P4. The matter was intimated to the police through wireless and the Karimkunnam police also immediately arrived at the spot, helped to put off the fire. A mahazar was prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimkunnam, which is marked as Ext.P5. A detailed mahazar was prepared by the Karimkunnam police about the damages caused to the building, furniture and utilities, household articles etc. of the tenant Sri. Chackochan. The detailed mahazar prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimkunnam about the damages caused to the building, furniture and the household articles of the person possessed in the building is marked as Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the certificate issued by the Secretary, Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath stating that the said building belongs to the complainant. The copy of the tax receipt of the property of the complainant is marked as Ext.P8. A location sketch was prepared by the Village Officer, Karimkunnam describing about the property and residential building of the complainant which is marked as Ext.P9. The opposite party never issued the claim amount to the complainant. So the complainant issued a registered notice to the Ist opposite party demanding the claim amount within 30 days, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P11 and the Postal AD card is Ext.P12. One Mr.Chackochan, S/o Mathai, Cherunilathu House, his relative Salomi and her children were residing in the building as tenant with a lease agreement and the lease agreement is marked as Ext.P13. PW2 who is an independent surveyor who assessed the damages caused to the building. He was deputed by the complainant himself and he prepared a detailed survey report, he assessed the loss of damages caused to the building and also prepared an estimate and plan for the construction of a new building, which is marked as Ext.P14(series). The report produced by PW2 in which Rs.2,70,000/- is written as the cost for the construction of the new building. A payment of Rs.1,000/- was paid to the said surveyor for the same. Ext.P15 is the receipt for the same. PW2 deposed that he is not having any separate licence for assessing the loss of the building. He assessed the loss after 1 ½ months and there is no destruction caused to the foundation of the building. The building was a low cost construction. PW3 and her children residing with the tenant of the complainant. Ext.P13 lease agreement was written by PW3. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the 4th opposite party, PW3 deposed that she is not aware how the fire accident was occurred. There was no electric supply at the time when she left the house and probably it may have occurred at the time when the electric supply has come and the bulb was lightened. She left the house after put off the fire in the kitchen.
DW1 is the Administrative Officer of the Ist opposite party. DW1 produced policy copy of the insurance company issued to the 2nd opposite party, which is marked as Ext.R1. DW1 deposed that they are not liable to compensate the complainant. As per Section VII of Public Liability in the conditions of the policy, “The Ist opposite party insurer is liable to indemnify all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees”. So the provision under Section VI1(b)(ii) in the conditions of the policy have no application in this case since the accidental damage to property was took place not while the cylinder being installed by the insured's employees. Nobody was in the building at the time of the alleged accident. So the opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant for the damages caused to the building by fire. The policy is only an LPG Dealers Package policy, which is issued to the Managing Director of the 2nd opposite party. The claim form filed by the complainant to the opposite party is marked as Ext.R2. The copy of the letter dated 16.11.2010 issued to the 2nd opposite party for rejecting the claim is marked as Ext.R4. DW2 is an independent surveyor, who was deputed to assess the damages caused to the building and household utilities. A detailed estimate was prepared for the loss caused to the building which amounts to Rs.1,15,000/-, which is marked as Ext.R5. The detailed survey report filed by the surveyor is marked as Ext.R6. As per DW2, there was no destruction caused to the foundation of the building. There was no cracks noticed on the existing walls after the damage. So it can be used again. As per the complainant, who is the owner of the residential building, where the fire accident was occurred, the building was leased to one Mr.Chackochan, his relative Salomi and her children were residing there. But nobody was there at the time of accident. The 2nd opposite party duly insured with the Ist opposite party and so the claim was filed before the Ist opposite party. The fire accident caused a loss of Rs.2,70,000/- to the building as per Ext.P14(series) survey report filed by the independent surveyor deputed by the complainant himself. As per PW1, the staff of the 2nd opposite party came there after the accident and they have sealed the LPG gas cylinder by using washing soap and was taken to the custody of them. As per PW3, the fire may have been occurred due to the leakage of the domestic LPG gas. She was not there at the time of accident. At the time when she left the house, she completely put off the fire wood in the kitchen and there was no electric supply, it may have been occurred because the bulb has lightened when the electric supply has come. As per the Ist opposite party they are not liable to indemnify the complainant because the policy is only a LPG Dealers Package policy. As per Section VII (b) of the conditions of the policy, “they are liable to indemnify all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees”. As per the 2nd opposite party, they are not liable to indemnify the complainant because the accident may have been caused due to the misuse of them and if any loss caused, the Ist opposite party is liable for the same, who is the insurer of the 2nd opposite party. As per the 3rd opposite party, their Deputy Manager inspected the spot and reported that the complainant's tenant Sri.Chackochan was using the LPG cylinder in violation of the guidelines, that is by using alternate firewood in the same kitchen for cooking. It is only because of the misuse of the alternate energy, which was not completely put off, that the fire occurred and as a result of which there was leakage and consequential fire. So the tenant of the complainant is negligent and liable for the same. The 3rd opposite party has taken a comprehensive insurance policy from the 4th opposite party to cover all LPG cylinder accidents manufactured and sold by this opposite party. Hence if at all this opposite party is found to be liable, the 4th opposite party is legally liable for the same. Here the cause of the accident has not mentioned by any of the surveyors or any of the opposite parties. The cause for the fire accident was not reported by the Fire force or the Police. Only assumption for the cause of fire was mentioned by the Fire & Rescue Station Officer, Thodupuzha. The opposite parties also never found the actual reason for the occurrence of the fire. The fire was spread due to the leakage of LPG gas. We think that the fire accident has been caused due to the leakage of gas and it may be from the electrical circuit or from the firewood. But PW3 deposed that she put off the fire completely in the firewood, at the time when she left the place. There is no evidence produced by the opposite party that the fire was caused due to the negligence of the complainant. So it is very clear that the leakage of LPG has been occurred. So the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. As per PW1 and PW3, the loss assessed by PW2 is Rs.2,70,000/- for the construction of a new house. Ext.P14(series) survey report also states the same. But as per DW2, the independent surveyor deputed by the Ist opposite party, the damages caused to the building amounts only Rs.1,15,000/- and a detailed report and photographs were also produced. DW2 also deposed that the existing building walls have no cracks and they can be utilised again for the construction. There is no damages to the foundation of the building. So we think that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of DW2, the surveyor who reported the loss of the building and Rs.1,15,000/- may be awarded to the complainant for the loss caused to the building. As per the Ist opposite party, the policy is a LPG Dealers Package Policy to the 2nd opposite party, who is the insured and they are not liable to compensate the complainant. But here the accident was caused because of the leakage of domestic gas from the gas cylinder or may be from the regulator. It is the duty of the Ist, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to supply the cylinder and regulator with extreme safety measures to the consumers. It is the duty of the 2nd opposite party to inspect the gas cylinder, stove, regulator and tube periodically and if there is any defect or leakage to the same that should have been replaced by them from the cost of the consumers. Here there is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that they have made inspection on the gas cylinder or regulator of the complainant and the safety of the consumers were guaranteed by them. The 2nd opposite party ought to have supplied the gas cylinder and fitted it with the stove in order to avoid accidents at the time of fitting the same. If there is a leakage in the LPG cylinder that ought to have been cured and changed by the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is liable to supply the gas cylinders without having any leakage through its rubber washer or cap and it is the duty of the 3rd opposite party to deliver the same safely to the consumers through the 2nd opposite party. So the leakage of LPG gas from the cylinder or regulator caused damages, which is a gross deficiency from the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The Ist and 4th opposite parties are the insurers of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties respectively and they are duly liable to indemnify the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But as per the 4th opposite party, they are liable for only Rs.90,000/- as per Ext.R7 policy per event at the authorised customers' registered premises, the complainant should bear Rs.10,000/- as compulsory excess of the same. So the balance amount Rs.25,000/- should be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The 4th opposite party is directed to pay Rs.90,000/- with 9% interest to the complainant from the date of this petition, as insurance premium amount as per Ext.R7 within 30 days and the balance amount Rs.25,000/- should be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
DATE OF FILING : 01.10.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.208/2010
Between
Complainant : Chackochan S/o Mathai,
Cherunilathu House,
Mrala P.O, Muttom,
Thodupuzha – 685 587,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
IV Floor, Pathayapura,
Near Ragam Theatre,
Round South, Thrissur - 1.
(By Adv: Thomas Sebastian)
2. Mr.George Joseph,
Managing Director,
Geo Gas,
Olamattom P.O,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sijimon.K.Augustine)
3. The Public Relation Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation,
Ambalamugal P.O,
Ernakulam.
(By Advs: C.S.Dias & Lissy M.M)
4. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
Thrippunithara P.O,
Ernakulam.
(By Adv: K.Pradeepkumar)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a tenant of Sri.N.P.Chacko, Puthiyakunnel House, Karimkunnam, who is the owner of Building No.K II/199 of Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath. The complainant, his relative Salomi and her children were residing in the above mentioned building for the sake of education for her children. On 9.05.2009 at about 12.42 p.m, fire has been occurred in the said building due to the leakage of gas from the LPG gas cylinder and all the household articles were completely destroyed due to the fire. The Fire Force and Karimkunnam Police arrived at the spot suddenly and put off the fire, a loss of Rs.1,08,500/- has been caused to the complainant and his family. The gas connection was availed from the 3rd opposite party's authorised agency Geo Gas, who is the 2nd opposite party. The Fire Force has put off the fire in the kitchen side by pumping water and gas cylinder was removed from the spot. The 2nd opposite party's staff has sealed the same with washing soap and the cylinder with regulator as Sl.No.571959J was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party on 10.05.2009. The 2nd opposite party was insured with the Ist opposite party and so a claim was filed before the Ist opposite party and it was rejected by them. Eventhough a registered letter was sent to the 2nd opposite party on 29.03.2010, but they never cared to compensate the complainant. So this petition is filed for getting Rs.1,08,500/- as the loss caused to the household utilities.
2. The Ist opposite party filed a written version stating that they are not liable to indemnify the complainant because the Ist opposite party has issued a LPG Dealers Package Policy No.100606/46/08/22/00000096 to the 2nd opposite party, for coverage of fire, burglary and public liability subject to terms and conditions contained in the said policy. As per Section VII(Public Liability) in the conditions of policy, 'the Ist opposite party insurer is liable to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in the event of accidental bodily injury to any person or accidental damage to property in connection with trade or business occurred at any insured's premises or at any registered address of the customer only whilst being installed by the insured under his employees'. So the policy is not applicable in this case of the complainant and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. But they have deputed a surveyor to assess the damages caused to the household goods and the loss was Rs.77,500/- as per the survey report and they are liable to pay the same only.
3. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties filed separate written versions, which is the same as in CC No.207/2010.
4. The evidence adduced in C.C No.207/2010 is common to this case also.
5. The complainant produced an additional affidavit. Ext.P16 is the copy of the claim form filed by the complainant to the Ist opposite party stating that the damages caused to the household articles, clothes and edibles which worth Rs.1,08,500/-. It was received by the Ist opposite party as per Ext.P17 AD Card. But the opposite party never disbursed the amount. So a registered notice was sent to the Ist opposite party, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P18. It was also received by the Ist opposite party as per Ext.P19 AD Card. A list was prepared by the complainant for the loss caused to the household utilities which amounts to Rs.1,05,500/-, copy of which is marked as Ext.P20. The total amount in Ext.P20 is Rs.1,08,500/-.
6. DW1 deputed an independent surveyor to assess the damages caused to the household utilities of the complainant. DW2 who is the surveyor assessed the damages caused to the building and household utilities. Ext.R6 is the survey report filed by DW2. As per Ext.R6 report, a detailed assessment report has been filed by DW2, wherein the total damages caused to the complainant's household utilities and furniture is only Rs.77,500/-.
7. All evidence produced in CC No.207/2010 are also considered in this case also. The points discussed in CC No.207/2010 is common this case also. The only difference is the quantum of damages. As per the complainant the amount arrived is Rs.1,08,500/- as per Ext.P20, which is a report prepared by the complainant himself. There is no bill or voucher for the destroyed items has been produced by the complainant. It may be true that if such bill or voucher was kept by the complainant that may be destroyed by fire. As per the report and certificate prepared by the Station Officer of Fire and Rescue Station, Thodupuzha, the damages assessed for the household utilities is only Rs.75,000/-. As per the survey report filed by DW2, who is a Civil Engineer deputed by the Ist opposite party, the assessment done by him states that the total loss caused to the household utilities is Rs.77,500/-. So we think that Rs.77,500/- may be awarded as the loss caused to the complainant due to the incident. The accident has been caused by the negligence of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties as discussed in CC No.207/2010. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are duly insured with the Ist and 4th opposite parties respectively and so they are also liable to compensate the same.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.77,500/- as per Ext.R6 Survey Report to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - N.P. Chacko
PW2 - K.N.Anirudhan
PW3 - Salomi Thomas
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - P.M. Bindhu
DW2 - V.P.Mohammed Shaji
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Claim Form filed by the complainant to the Ist opposite party
Ext.P2 - AD Card for receipt of Ext.P1
Ext.P3 - Photocopy of LPG Dealers Package policy issued to the complainant
Ext.P4 - Fire Report with Certificate dated 9.05.2009 prepared by the Station Officer, Fire & Rescue Station, Thodupuzha
Ext.P5 - Site Mahazar prepared by the S.I of Police, Karimkunnam
Ext.P6 - Detailed mahazar dated 20.05.2009 prepared by V.Pushparaj, S. I of Police,
Karimkunnam about the damages caused to the building, furniture and household articles
Ext.P7 - Certificate issued by the Secretary, Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath
Ext.P8 - Photocopy of Tax receipt of the property of the complainant
Ext.P9 - Location sketch prepared by the Village Officer, Karimkunnam
Ext.P10 - Certificate dated 21.10.2009 issued by the Secretary, Karimkunnam Grama Panchayath
Ext.P11 - Photocopy of registered notice dated 29.03.2010 addressed to the Ist opposite party
Ext.P12 - Postal AD card of Ext.P11 letter
Ext.P13 - Lease agreement between the complainant and the tenant dated 13.01.2006
Ext.P14(series) - Estimate and Plan for the construction of new building prepared by PW2, an independent surveyor
Ext.P15 - Receipt dated 15.05.2009 for Rs.100/- issued by PW2, independent surveyor
Ext.P16 - Copy of claim form filed by the complainant to the Ist opposite party in CC No.208/2010
Ext.P17 - AD Card for receipt of Ext.P16
Ext.P18 - Photocopy of Registered notice dated 29.03.2010 issued by the complainant to the Ist opposite party, in C.C.208/2010
Ext.P19 - AD Card
Ext.P20 - Photocopy of List prepared by the complainant for the loss caused to the household utilities in CC.208/2010
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Photocopy of LPG Dealers Package Policy
Ext.R2 - Claim Form filed by the complainant to the opposite party dated 20.05.2009 in CC.207/2010
Ext.R3 - Claim Form filed by the complainant to the opposite party in CC.208/2010
Ext.R4 - Photocopy of repudiation letter dated 16.11.2010 issued by the Ist opposite party
Ext.R5 - Estimate prepared by the Insurance Surveyor for the loss caused to the building in CC.207/2010 with photographs
Ext.R6 - Survey Report prepared by the Insurance Surveyor for the loss caused to the household goods in CC.208/2010
Ext.R7 - Policy with Conditions
