DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
Date of filing: 30/10/2020
CC/135/2020
The General Manager and Director
Rep. by Riyaz, Director, TOPO TOWER
TOPO Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., TOPO TOWER
Cherpulassery, Kakkathodu
Palakkad – 679 504 - Complainant
(By Adv. Madhavankutty)
V/s
1. The New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Kizhadiyil Complex, 1st Floor
Ottapalam Road, Cherpulassery, Palakkad
2. The Grievance Cell
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office, Kandakulathy Towers
M.G.Road, Ernakulam - Opposite parties
(Opposite parties 1 & 2 by Adv. K.V.Sujith)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant
The complainant was running business in the name and style of Topo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. They took standard fire and special perils Policy from the 1st opposite party for the insurance coverage of their godown with No: 76270411190100000056 valid from 20/06/2019 to 19/06/2020. In the proposal form, a detailed list of the stock as on 20/06/2019 which was in the ware house to be insured was given which included various items like solar panels, aluminium window, PVC door and profiles, Door packing, aluminium cabinet hardwares, LED mirror light, etc. Before issuing the policy, the opposite party had inspected and verified it stocks.
On 08/08/2019 and 09/08/2019, the entire godown was immersed in water due to heavy flood occurred and total damage to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs was estimated by the complainant.
Accordingly the complainant lodged a claim with the 1st opposite party and they appointed a surveyor to assess the damages. The surveyor visited the site and took photographs and conducted a detailed survey.
Later, the opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant stating that only the LED lights, solar panels and goods held in trust upto 1 lakh is considered for compensation and only an amount of Rs.7,81,003/- was transferred to the complainant’s account and other articles in the stock are not covered as per their communication.
The act of the opposite party is totally illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
The policy specifically covers the stock and stock in process in the policy period and granting small amount is against the policy terms and conditions. The conduct of the opposite party had caused great mental and financial distress to the complainant and his business is at the verge of closure.
To the lawyer notice sent by the complainant, the opposite party sent reply stating the same reason.
So he approached this Commission with this complaint for directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 24,19,000/- towards the loss sustained and a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental agony and their deficiency in service.
2. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
Opposite parties in their version admitted the policy of the complainant and the period of coverage. They contended that SN6 Block details in the policy clearly indicates the items covered by the policy. As per that the items insured are
- Furniture Rs. 1,00,000/-
- Plant and machinery Rs. 1,00,000/-
- Stock and stock in process Rs. 60,00,000/-
- Stock held in trust Rs. 1,00,000/-
They admit that the complainant establishment was damaged due to flood which occurred on 08/08/2019 and 09/08/2019; but they denied the averment that the complainant had sustained a loss of Rs. 32 lakhs.
As per the policy, coverage is only for stock in the godown No: 2 for items relating to LED and solar panel. The total items damaged as ascertained by the company’s surveyor after physical verification is 4590 and its value is Rs. 7,60,109/- In addition to that, another 1 lakh is added for goods held in trust; thus the total loss is Rs. 8,60,109/- From this Rs. 38,000/- is reached as value of salvaged stock, so the loss assessed is Rs. 8,22,108/- After deducting policy excess of Rs. 41,105/- total loss is calculated as Rs. 7,81,003/- The above amount is transferred to the complainant’s account and the complainant had duly acknowledged that.
The complainant was indemnified by the opposite party to the actual extent of his stock which was available during the flood. There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and the opposite party had paid legitimate amount due to the complainant without any delay. So the complaint is without any bonafides and it has to be dismissed.
3. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the actual loss suffered by him?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5 marked from his side. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 & B2 marked in evidence. Complainant filed notes of argument.
5. Point No: 1
Complaint averment is that the complainant took an insurance coverage for their godown from the 1st opposite party namely “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” covering the period from 20/06/2019 to 19/06/2020. The proposal form contained a detailed list of the stock in the ware house which included various items like Solar panels, Aluminium window, PVC Door and profiles, Door packing, Aluminium cabinet hardwares, LED mirror light, etc. Before issuing the policy, the concerned officers of opposite party inspected the complainant’s premises and verified the stocks.
On 08/08/2019 and 09/08/2019 the godown was affected with flood and a total damage of Rs. 32 lakhs was estimated by the complainant.
Complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party and they paid Rs.7,81,003/- as the claim amount. Complainant contends that the policy specifically covers the stock and stock in process in the policy period and granting a meagre amount is against the policy terms & conditions.
6. The opposite party admits the policy and the damage caused to the complainant due to floods. But the quantum of damage claimed by the complainant is disputed by the opposite parties. According to them, their surveyor inspected the complainant’s premises and submitted a detailed report. The total items damaged as ascertained by the surveyor after physical verification is 4590 and value of the same is Rs.7,60,109/- Another addition of Rs. 1 lakh is added for goods held in trust. Thus the total loss ascertained is Rs. 8,60,109/- From this Rs. 38,000/- is reached as the value of the salvaged stock. So the loss assessed is Rs. 8,22,108/- After reducing policy excess of Rs. 41,105/-, total loss is calculated as Rs.7,81,003/- and the amount is transferred to the complainant’s account.
7. Eventhough the complainant in his pleadings had stated that a total damage to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs was estimated, the complainant did not produce any evidence before the Commission in support of this. They did not produce the stock statement before and after the occurrence of the incident. The stocks held by them before flood, the items damaged due to flood and its value are important in assessing the quantum of damage. In the absence of any evidence, we are not inclined to accept the contention put forth by the complainant.
8. Further the complainant in their argument note has mentioned that the opposite party’s surveyor assessed the loss to be Rs. 21,79,350/- But they did not state the source from where they got it. They also stated that since the survey is done by the opposite party by appointing surveyor, only the opposite party will have the report of the surveyor and they are purposefully suppressing it before this Commission inorder to wriggle out from the liability.
9. The complainant could have very well filed an application before this Commission to direct the 1st opposite party to produce this document. But there was no move from their part to call for the documents. In the absence of survey report and the evidence showing the actual loss incurred, the complainant failed to prove his contention. Point No: 1 is decided accordingly.
10. Points 2 to 4
As per the opposite party, their surveyor assessed the loss and they have transferred the eligible amount to the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite party. Since the complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence supporting his claim, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs claimed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant :
Ext. A1: Certified true copy of resolution passed at the meeting of directors dated 10/09/2020.
Ext. A2: Notice send to the opposite party dated 05/08/2020.
Ext. A3: Postal receipt dated 05/08/2020.
Ext. A4: Reply notice dated 04/09/2020.
Ext. A5: Policy copy.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:
Ext. B1: Copy of STANDARD FIRE & SPECIAL PERILS POLICY.
Ext. B2: Proposal for STANDARD FIRE & SPECIAL PERILS POLICY.
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
