IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C. No. 119/2011 (Filed on 13.05.2011)
Between:
Sham P.O.,
Punnamoottil House,
Pazhavangady P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk.
(By Adv. Reno Zac Vadekathara) … Complainant.
And:
Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.II, Trio Chambers,
Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 004.
(By Adv. P.D. Varghese) … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The complainant is conducting a hotel in room No. 20/XIII (old No. 252/XIX of 10th Ward) of Pazhavangadi Panchayat in the name and style ‘Thasni Hotel’. The said hotel is insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 442400/11/2010/361 which is valid from 07.10.2009 to 06.10.2010. On 19.03.2010, at about 04 a.m., a fire occurred in the hotel which caused a total damage of ` 2,15,800. In the fire, furniture, fridge, grinder etc. and vegetables and other items kept in the premises were destroyed. The officials of the Fire and Rescue Station, Ranni reached the spot and extinguished the fire and registered a fire occurrence report as 28/2010. Thereafter, the police officials from Ranni Police Station also visited the spot and entered a fire occurrence report in the General Diary on 20.03.2010. Pazhavangadi Village Officer also visited the spot and issued certificate showing the loss as ` 2,15,800. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a claim for ` 2,15,800 before the opposite party who allowed an amount of ` 17,000 as compensation. On getting the discharge voucher for the said amount, the complainant approached the opposite party for re-considering the complainant’s claim. But the opposite party denied the complainant’s claim. The denial of the claim is a deficiency of service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of an amount of ` 2,15,800 from the opposite party along with compensation of ` 10,000 and cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: Opposite party denied that they have not issued any policy to Thasni hotel conducted in room No. 20/XIII (old No. 252/XIX of 10th Ward) of Pazhavangadi Panchayat. Instead, they issued a Standard Fire & Special Perils policy No. 442400/11/2010/361 valid from 07.10.2009 to 06.10.2010 in the name of the complainant covering furniture fixtures and fittings, plant and machinery in Thasni hotel situated in building No. PP/11/1006 Ranni. So the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as the insured room and the fire occurred room are different. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the opposite party also contended that on the basis of the claim form submitted by the complainant, the opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the loss who assessed an amount of ` 17,000 as per the survey report dated 29.07.2010. As the hotel business was not being conducted in the insured premises, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Further, it is contended that the amount shown as the loss sustained by the complainant is highly inflated and not covered in the policy. The grinder was not damaged as claimed by the complainant. The utensils, dress, sheet, wooden utensils/accessories, water tanks, wash basin etc. were not covered by the policy. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 based on his proof affidavit and the proof affidavit of opposite party and Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, opposite party filed an argument note and both parties were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that his insured hotel caught fire and he had sustained a loss of ` 2,15,800. He claimed the amount on the strength of the policy issued in his name by the opposite party. But the opposite parties disallowed the entire claim and sanctioned an amount of `17,000. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get the entire amount.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the certificate dated 24.03.2010 issued by the Village Officer, Pazhavangady showing the details of the loss sustained by the complainant and its value as ` 2,15,800. Ext. A2 is the discharge voucher dated 20.09.2010 for ` 17,000 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A3 is General Diary entry of Ranni Police Station dated 20.03.2010 in respect of the fire incident. Ext. A4 is the Fire Occurrence Report dated 19.03.2010 of Fire and Rescue Unit, Ranni.
8. On the other hand, opposite party’s contention is that, as per the policy certificate, the number of the insured building is PP/XI/1006 whereas the fire was occurred in room No. 20/XIII (old No. 252/XIX of 10th Ward) of Pazhavangadi Panchayat and therefore they are not liable to the complainant as the insured room and the fire affected rooms are different. At the same time, it is admitted that the opposite party had issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy in the name of the complainant covering the furniture, fixtures and fittings for a sum of ` 1,40,000, plant and machinery for a sum of ` 1,00,000 and stock for a sum of ` 50,000 situated in the hotel Thasni, Pazhavangadi, Ranni conducted by the complainant. Though the complainant is not entitled to get the claim on the basis of the difference in the room number, opposite party deputed a surveyor on the basis of the information regarding the fire incident who visited the spot on 23.03.2010 and found that the complainant had started functioning of the hotel. So he could not assess the loss as the damaged apparatus and utensils were removed from the spot. In spite he assessed the loss as Rs. 17,000 and on the basis of the said survey report, opposite party sent a discharge voucher for the said amount. But the complainant did not return the same. According to the opposite party, the assessment made by the Village Officer and the Fire and Rescue Department varies and the said reports are based solely on the information furnished by the complainant. The claim of the complainant is highly inflated and is without any supporting evidence. The claim for the damages of certain items is also not covered by the policy. So they argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the Manager (Administration) of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the document produced were marked as Exts. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is the copy of the policy certificate in question and the policy conditions. Ext. B2 is the Surveyor’s Report dated 29.07.2010.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute regarding the fire incident. But the dispute between the parties is with regard to the number of the building and with regard to the actual loss caused in the incident. But the deputation of the surveyor by the opposite party for assessing the loss and the issuance of Ext. A2 discharge voucher by the opposite parties is a clear evidence against the opposite party’s contention regarding the difference of the building number. In the circumstance, the said contention of the opposite party is not sustainable and hence we find that the opposite party is liable to the complainant by virtue of the policy in question.
11. The next dispute is with regard to the actual loss due to the incident. In this connection, 5 assessment/valuation documents are brought in evidence by the parties. The first one is Ext. A1, the Village Officer’s Certificate, the second one is Ext. A2, discharge voucher of the opposite party, third one is Ext. A3, General Diary entry, the 4th one is Ext. A4, Fire Occurrence Report and the 5th one is Ext. B2 surveyor’s report. As per Ext.A1, the loss is ` 2,15,800, as per Ext. A2 and B2, the loss is ` 17,000, as per Ext. A3, the loss is about ` 1,50,000 and as per Ext. A4, the loss is ` 2,00,000. The assessed loss as per Exts. A1 to A4 and B2 are different and they are prepared by the concerned officials at different time. Ext. A1 certificate was prepared by the Village Officer on 24.03.2010 i.e. after 5 days from the date of occurrence. As per proof affidavit of the opposite party, the insurance surveyor visited the spot on 23.3.2010 i.e. after 4 days from the date of occurrence and hence it can be presumed that Ext. A2 was issued on the basis of insurance surveyor’s inspection which was conducted after 4 days from the date of occurrence. Ext. A3 general diary entry is seen recorded on 20.03.2010. Ext. A4 fire occurrence report is recorded on 19.03.2010. In the fire occurrence report, there is no description regarding the damages. In Ext. A3 G.D. entry there is some descriptions regarding the damages. Ext.A1 certificate of the Village Officer and Ext. B2 Surveyor’s Report had some details of the damaged items with item wise value. All the above said exhibits lacks required details like dimensions, quantity and quality etc. of the damaged items so as to enable this Forum to calculate the actual damages occurred in the fire incident. So the said assessments are not reliable as the calculations are made therein are not based on real facts. So it is clear that the assessments made by them are based on the informations received by them from the complainant or others. Further, the complainant or the opposite party has not adduced any cogent evidence either oral or documentary evidence for substantiating and supporting their respective claim. However, it is a fact that the complainant had sustained loss due to the fire incident and the opposite party is liable and the complainant is entitled to get the loss on the basis of the insurance policy. But at this later stage, it is not possible to ascertain the actual loss of the complainant. So it is not proper to return this matter for a fresh assessment. In the circumstances, and after considering the assessments, opinion and observations seen in Exts. A1 to A4 and Ext. B2, this Forum come to the conclusion that an amount of ` 50,000 will be just, proper and adequate to cover the loss of the complainant. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed as stated above.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the whole realization. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for compensation and costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sham P.O.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Certificate dated 24.03.2010 issued by the Village Officer,
Pazhavangady.
A2 : Discharge voucher dated 20.09.2010 for ` 17,000 issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : General Diary entry of Ranni Police Station dated 20.03.2010 in
respect of the fire incident.
A4 : Fire Occurrence Report dated 19.03.2010 of Fire and Rescue
Department, Ranni.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of the policy certificate.
B2 : Insurance Survey Report dated 29.07.2010.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Sham P.O., Punnamoottil House, Pazhavangady P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Village, Ranni Taluk.
(2) The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.II, Trio Chambers,
Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 004.
(3) The Stock File.
