Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/484/2011

K.R.B. Printers (A multi Colour offset Printers) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G. Parvateeswara Rao

29 May 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint: 16-12-2011

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:29-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

FRIDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.484/2011

BETWEEN:

K.R.B.Printers ( A Multi Colour Offset Printers) Chinna Veedhi,

Anakapalli, Rep. by its Proprietor, Konathala Rambabu,

S/o late Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged 55 years, r/a Laxmi Devi Peta,

Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.

…Complainant

AND:

1.The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam.

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Anakapalli Branch, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 21-05-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of      SRI G.PARVATEESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI D.SIVA PRASAD, Advocate for the 1^ST Opposite Party and of SMT.A.BHANUMATHI, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

ORDER

 (As per SRI C.V.RAO, the Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)                                                                               

1. The Complainant asked the forum to pass order in his favour, and against the Opposite Parties:

1. Directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation along with accrued interest @ 24% p.a., thereon from the date of claim till the date of realization;
2. for costs of the petition;
3. for such other relief or reliefs which the Honourable Authority deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice.

2.       The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint respectively against them with costs.

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the complainant is the resident of Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalli, Visakhapantam and on 22-05-2009 morning at 6.30. A.M., a fire accident took place in KRB Printers  being run by Complainant at Chinna Veedhi, Anakapalli and immediately thereafter the same was intimated to concered officers and also the officers of State Bank of India, Anakapalli, they came and inspected the said premises and gave certificate assessing the loss sustained to the complainant. Even though the complainant requested the Bank Authorities and though the Bank Authorites promised him to recover the loss sustained to the Complainant through the Insurance Company, they failed to do so. The complainant stated that he obtained an Insurance Policy from the 1^st Opposite Party bearing Policy No.620184/11/08/11/00000278, dated 4-9-2008 and as per the terms and conditions enunciated in the said insurance policy, the complainant has insured his machinery and stock of printing items @ Rs.19,00,000/-. In view of the said fire accident, the complainant sutained monetary loss around Rs.8,00,000/-. He is completely depending on the said business only, except the income therefrom, he has no other income to lead his life. Due to the said accident, the complainant lost his earning source, thereby sustained huge loss apart from mental agony and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy aforesaid, the company of 1^st OP has got liability in respect of claim of the complainant in the event of loss or damage which was insured with the 1^st OP. In view of the loss occasioned to the complainant, he became financially crippled and the same has to be compensated by the 1^st Opposite party as the complainant obtained insurance policy from the 1^st Opposite Party. The complainant stated that the surveyors estimated the loss, occasioned to him due to the above said accident, around Rs.8,00,000/- apart from the insured amount. Though  he requested the respondent for settlement of the claim, while promising to do so, the OPpposite Party went on postponing the same but did not settle the said claim till so far and hence this complaint.

4.       The complainant filed an evidence affidavit besides written arguments to support his claim. Exhibits A1 to A10 are marked for the complainant.

5.       On the other hand, the 1^st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the complainant, by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that as per its records, the printing press belonging to the complainant with stock of the press,  and machinery was under hypothecation to the State Bank of India, Anakapalli, the said Banker in order to protect its interest,  the Banker insured stock of the press, machinery with the 1^st OP. Further the said fire policy was issued with express terms and conditions. The 1^st OP stated that as per the policy conditions and endorsements, if any, claim arises out of the valid policy period, the 1^st OP is liable to pay the admissible amount to the banker only and  the 1^st OP processed claim  and paid the admissible amount as per survey report only to the banker, therefore, the allegations that the 1^st OP not at all accepted the claim of the complainant  and is postponing the settlement of claim, is false and incorrect. They are invented for the purpose of this claim only, in fact the complainant has knowledge about the hypothecation  of the press, conducting of survey, payment of amount to the Banker as per the policy condtions. The 1^st Opposite party and further stated that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint before the Forum, as the claim was processed and it paid the admissible amount as per the policy conditions, the complainant filed the present case to claim the amount from the 1^st OP in a wrongful manner as well as in order to cause wrongful loss to the 1^st OP.  

6.       The 1^st Opposite Party filed an Evidence Affidavit and also written arguments to buttres its contention. Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked for the 1^st OP.

7.       The 2^nd Opposite party also strongly resisted the claim of the complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter that as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the 1^st OP has got liability in respect of claim of the complainant in the event of loss or damage which was insured the 2^nd Opposite Party has nothing to do with the same. The complainant’is  that there is gross negligence on the part of the 2^nd OP regarding the claim of the complainant is not true, valid and tenable in law and the same is hereby denied. The 2^nd Opposite Party  further sand that it promptly forwarded the claim submitted by the complainant to the 1^st OP and the Authorities of this OP extended all co-operation by giving required information in the matter and it is for the 1^st OP to investigate, process and settle/repudiate the claim as per their rules. The 2^nd Opposite party has no objection at all if the 1^st OP allows the claim and pays the amount to the complainant.  The 2^nd Opposite party further contended that the relief claimed by the complainant for payment of Rs.29 lakhs towards compensation along with accrued interst @ 24% p.a., thereon from the date of claim till the date of realization is not at all maintainable as against it (the 2^nd OP) since it is the 1^st OP alone who have to process, settle and pay the same to the complainant as per their rules. The 2^nd Opposite Party further stated that since the claim amount is Rs.20 Lakhs plus interst, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same is liable for dismissal.

8.       2^nd OP filed an evidence affidavit besides written arguments to support its contention. However, no exhibits are marked for the 2^nd OP.

9.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the comlainant as well as the OPs.

10.     After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that Exhibit A7 (Exhibit B1), which is the Insurance Policy in question, clearly shows  the insured’s name as “ M/s SBI, MAIN BRANCH, ANAKAPALLE”. Thus, under the said policy, the 2^nd OP is the insured, the 1^st OP is the Insurer. Moreover, as per Exhibit B4 “Settlement Intimation Vochure”, the claim in question was settled as the 2^nd OP (the Insured) received Rs.68,969/- as full discharge of the claim from the New India Assurance Company-1^st OP.  Very peculiarly, the said fact of settlement of the claim was suppressed by the 2^nd OP for the reasons best known to it. Whatever it may be, the present complainant has no legs to stand to file this complaint as he was not the Insured according to Exhibit A7 (which is also Exhibit B1) Insurance Policy which is the principal document.  Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 29^th day of May, 2015.

   Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainants:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	28-05-2009	Receipt	Original
A-2	05-06-2014	Fire Attendance Certificate	Original
A-3	12-06-2009	Certificate issued by Deputy Electrical Inspector	Original
A-4	27-05-2009	Electrical Bill	Original
A-5	27-05-2009	Loss of Printing Machinery Parts	Original
A-6	27-05-2009	Loss of Electrical Machinery wiring particulars	Original
A-7	04-09-2008	Insurance Policy Copy	Original
A-8	07-03-2015	Survey Report of Partha SArathy Engineering	Original
A-9	07-03-2015	Rama Electrical Rewinding words, Rajahmundry	Original
A-10	10-03-2015	Letter of complaint	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the 1^st OP     

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B-1	04-09-2008	Insurance Policy Copy	Certified Copy
B-2	20-07-2009	Survey Report	Original
B-3	18-08-2014	Third Party Affidavits	Original
B-4		Settlement Intimation Voucher	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the 2^nd OP:-    -nil-

   Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER