BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 4th day of April, 2012
C.C.No.39/2011
Between:
K.A.V.Prasada Rao, S/o K.Pullaiah,Proprietor of Kalpavruksha Lodge,
H.No.414-5, R/o Madhavaram Road,Mantralayam, Kurnool District-518 345.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited,Represented by its Branch Manager,
Adoni Branch, D.No.19/19, 20/21, Municipal Main Road, Adoni, Kurnool District.
2. The Divisional Manager,The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, D.No.11/156, Hospital Road,Anantapur.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President) C.C. No. 39/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.17,84,813/- towards damages to the building/Lodge with interest at 12% per annum from the date of damaged to the said building;
- To award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties;
And
- To costs of Rs.10,000/-;
And
- To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant’s lodge by name Kalpavruksha Lodge, Mantralayam was completely inundated with flood water on 02-10-2009. The building, furniture fixtures etc., were damage due to floods. The complainant informed about the damaged to opposite party No.1 and submitted the claim forms. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor to assess the loss caused to the complainant. He has not assessed loss correctly. Opposite party No.1 settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.8,99,837/-. The said amount was received under protest. Immediately the complainant issued a notice on 27-01-2010 claiming balance amount of Rs.17,84,813. Opposite party No.1 received the said notice and gave reply notice with false allegations.
The municipal surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.26,84,650/-. There is no reason to reject the municipal surveyor report. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant’s lodge situated in Mantralayam was inundated in flood water on 01-10-2009. The building was partly damaged. The fixtures, fittings etc., were also damaged. The complaint submitted the claim forms along with estimate of loss prepared by the Municipal surveyor. The opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor who is an IRDA licensed surveyor. He inspected the lodge of the complainant and submitted the report assessing the loss at Rs.8,99,837/-. The complainant invented the new story and got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties to gain wrongfully. The complainant accepted Rs.8,99,837/- in full and final settlement of the claim. Opposite parties are not liable to pay any further amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of Machani Venkatesh are filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of Kalpavruksha lodge, Mantralayam and it was inundated in flood water on 01-10-2009. The complaint got his lodge insured with the opposite parties under the policy Ex.A1 (Ex.B1). The period of policy is from 01-03-2009 to 28-02-2010. Admittedly the building of the complainant was partly damaged due to floodwater on 02-10-2009. It is also admitted that the furniture, fixtures and fittings were also damaged. Admittedly the complainant informed about the damage caused to his building to the opposite parties and the opposite parties appointed insurance surveyor by name Hosur Vijay Kumar, Anantapur to assess the loss. The Insurance surveyor inspected the lodge and submitted Ex.B2 report. It is also admitted that the complainant received an amount of Rs.8,99,837/- from the opposite parties. After receiving the said the amount the complainant got issued legal notice Ex.A8 dated 18-02-2010 to opposite party No.1. Opposite party gave a reply notice Ex.A9.
8. It is the case of the complainant that the insurance surveyor appointed by the opposite parties did not assess the loss properly. It is further case of the complainant that he is entitled total amount of Rs.26,84,650/- as assessed by the Municipal surveyor. Ex.A3 is the estimate given by the Machani Venkatesh Municipal Licensed surveyor. The said surveyor also gave affidavit in support of the contention of the complainant. The report of the insurance surveyor must be given due weight by both parties. Ex.B2 is the report of the insurance surveyor by name Hosur Vijay Kumar. Under Ex.A1 policy the building, furniture, fixtures and fittings were insured. The insurance surveyor estimated the loss caused to the building at Rs.3,72,000/-. He also assessed the loss caused to the furniture, fixtures and fittings at Rs.10,79,400/- and arrived net loss at Rs.5,83,657/- after deducting an amount of Rs.5,83,657/- as there was under insurance. The complainant did not place satisfactory evidence on record to show that the complainant sustained more loss to his building than assessed by the insurance surveyor. The insurance surveyor taking into consideration various aspects rightly arrived the net loss caused to the building at Rs.3,72,000/-. During the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the complainant conceded that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the complainant sustained loss more than Rs.3.72,000/- to his building due to the floods.
9. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the furniture, fixtures and fittings in the building were insured for Rs.12,00,000/- and that the surveyor wrongly came to the conclusion that the sum insured for FFF was Rs.6,00,000/-only. He further argued that in the surveyor appointed by the opposite parties wrongly come to the conclusion that FFF were under insured. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that furniture, fixtures and fittings were insured only for Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 policy and that the insurance surveyor rightly came to the conclusion that FFF were under insured. It is noted in first page of Ex.A1 that the insured amount under FFF was Rs.12,00,000/-. But in the last page of Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that the entire building including furniture etc., were insured for total sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/-. Out of it the sum assured towards furniture, fixtures and fittings is only Rs.6,00,000/-. Admittedly the complainant submitted his claim to opposite parties under Ex.B5. In Ex.B5 also it is mentioned that the furniture, fixtures and fittings were insured for Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant having admitted in Ex.B5 that the sum assured towards FFF was Rs.6,00,000/- cannot now contend that FFF were insured for Rs.12,00,000/-. The surveyor after going through the policy issued by opposite parties rightly come to the conclusion that the furniture, fixtures and fittings in the lodge of the complainant were insured for Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant under insured the furniture, fixtures and fittings in his building. The insurance surveyor rightly assessed the net liability of the opposite parties at Rs.5,83,657/- taking into consideration under insurance clause. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the report of the insurance surveyor. The insurance surveyor assessed total net loss liability of opposite parties at Rs.9,07,874/-. The complainant having received Rs.8,99,837/- in full satisfaction of the claim issued a valid settlement intimation voucher Ex.B3. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is not entitled for any relief.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 4th day of April, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing
No.610702/11/08/11/00000516.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Fire Claim Form dated 10-10-2009.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Certificate along with detailed abstract
and estimate given by Machani Venkatesh, Municipal
Licensed Surveyor, Yemmiganur, dated 08-11-2009.
Ex.A4 Office copy of Survey Report of Hosur Vijay Kumar,
Insurance Surveyor dated 02-12-2009.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Settlement Intimation Voucher.
Ex.A6 Office copy of Letter addressed by the complainant to
opposite party No.1 dated 27-01-2010.
Ex.A7 Reply Letter dated 01-02-2010.
Ex.A8 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 18-02-2010.
Ex.A9 Reply Notice dated 12-04-2010.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of Letter of complainant to opposite party
No.1 dated 20-5-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Policy bearing No.610702/11/08/11/00000516
along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Survey Report of Hosur Vijay Kumar, Insurance
Surveyor dated 02-12-2009.
Ex.B3 Settlement Intimation Voucher.
Ex.B4 Office copy of Reply Notice dated 12-04-2010.
Ex.B5 Fire Claim Form dated 10-10-2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// 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 :
