2. The Assistant General Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Rasmecc & Sarc, Upstairs,

    Treasury Branch,

    2/14 Brodipet, Guntur-2.                          … Opposite parties

      This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 28-06-11 in the presence of Sri P.S. Prasad, advocate for complainant and of                             Sri G. Srinivasu, advocate for 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,38,132/- together with interest at 24% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.1,00,000/- towards hardship, mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant took standard fire and special perils insurance policy for Rs.17,00,000/- in respect of chilly stored at the trading platform,   Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur from the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party issued policy bearing No.621003/11/07/1100000395.   The said policy was valid from               22-06-07 to 21-06-08.   The said insurance policy was done through the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2nd opposite party paid the premium and debited to the account of the complainant on 03-05-08.   Major fire accident took place on 03-05-08 and all the chillies in 450 shops were gutted to ashes including that of the complainant.   While preparing the insurance policy the opposite parties mentioned the address of the office and shop as one and the same.   In the agreement of loan/hypothecation to State Bank of India the address of the office was mentioned as D.No.23-11-135, Upstairs, Eluru Bazar, Guntur and the shop address as plot No.194, Mirch yard, Agriculture Market Committee, Guntur.  The registered office of the complainant was situated in Ekadandaiah Panthulu’s charities building at Eluru bazaar.   The complainant stored 480 bags of chillies (red) and 95 bags of thalu.   Neither of the opposite parties paid any amount towards compensation to the complainant.   The total value of the chillies stocks that were burnt on 03-05-08 was Rs.9,76,800/-.   The 1^st opposite party did not pay the amount contending that the address mentioned in the insurance policy did not cover the risk.   The insurance company is not serious to settle the matter.   No relief was claimed against the 2^nd opposite party and was added as a proper and necessary party.   The 1^st opposite party is negligent and there is deficiency of service.   Due to that the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony and is  bound to pay the compensation.

3.     The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

4.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complaint is barred by limitation.   The 1^st opposite party appointed Mr. V. Balaji as surveyor to assess the loss.  The said Balaji opined that the claim is inadmissible as no fire accident took place in the insured premises.   At the request of the insured the said Balaji verified the books and also visited the plot No.194 located at AMC Yard, Guntur and conducted survey and assessed the loss.   As per surveyor’s report, the net loss was Rs.1,00,400/-.    The 1^st opposite party insured the stocks located at D.No.23-11-135, Eka Dandaiah Panthulu’s charities building, Eluru Bazaar, Guntur but not the stocks located at plot No.194 of Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur.   The repudiation of the claim on 29-10-10 by the 1^st opposite party on            29-10-10 is therefore justified.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.     Exs.A-1 to A-16 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-6 on behalf of 1^st opposite party were marked.

6.   Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so from whom?
4. To what relief?

7.   POINT No.1:-    The complaint was filed on 30-09-10.   Ex.B-3 is the letter addressed by the 1^st opposite party on 29-10-10 to the complainant in which it was mentioned that it has no liability towards stocks damaged at Plot No.194 of Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur because the policy was issued covering the stocks situated at D.No.23-11-135 Eka Dandaiah Panthulu’s charities building, Eluru Bazaar, Guntur.   Ex.B-3 was subsequent to the filing of the complaint.   In Ex.B-3 a reference was made to the letter issued by the complainant on 05-05-08.  For that letter the complainant addressed Ex.B-3 on 29-10-10.   It can therefore be said that the claim of the complainant is pending with the 1^st opposite party.   Hence we opine that the complaint is in time.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complaint.

8.   POINT No.2:-    To prove that the 1^st opposite party was negligent in settling the claim the complainant relied on Ex.A-4 dated 17-05-08 addressed by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party.   Ex.A-4 was subsequent to the fire accident i.e., on 03-05-08. For better appreciation Ex.A-4 is extracted below:

                “The above trading company is banking with our branch enjoying cash credit limits dealing in chillies business.   It has been reported to us vide their letter dated 5^th May, 2008 that there was a major fire accident at Guntur Mirchi Yard on                        03-05-08 on account of which the stocks of chillies stored in the plot No.194, Mirchi Yard have completely burned to ashes.

                In the insurance policy, the office address i.e.,                          D.No.23-11-135, Eka Dandaiah Charities Building, Guntur-522003 has been mentioned instead of their godown address i..e, plot No.194, Agricultural Market Committee Yard, G.T. Road, Guntur Mirchi Yard-522004 inadvertently.   The stocks are stored in their godown located in Mirchi yard only.

                Further, we have to advise that the above unit had a insurance policy with M/s National Insurance Company Limited for the period 31-03-2006 to 31-03-2007 for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and there also the chillies stored place i.e, Plot No.194, Agricultural Market Committee Yard, G.T. Road, Guntur Mirchi Yard-522004.

                In view of the above, we request you made the necessary correction in the policy and arrange for the settlement of the claim made by M/s Balakrishna Trading Company”.    

9.     Ex.A-4 coupled with Ex.B-1 (=Ex.A-8) revealed that the risk covered to the property was located at D.No.23-11-135, Eka Dandaiah Panthulu’s charities building, Eluru Bazaar, Guntur.   Previous policy referred to Ex.B-1 was marked as Ex.B-6.  The earlier policy referred to in Ex.A-8 is not Ex.A-7 (insured for Rs.2,00,000/-).  In Ex.B-6 also it was mentioned that the risk to the property covered was located at Eka Dandaiah Panthulu’s charities building, Eluru Bazaar, Guntur.   Ex.A-4, Ex.B-1 and B-6 revealed that it is the 2^nd opposite party who insured the stocks with the 1^st opposite party on behalf of complainant.

10.   To rebut the same the opposite party relied on the decision reported in 2009 (1) CPJ (6) (SC) and 2011 (1) CPR 287 (NC).

        In Deokar Exports Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2009 (1) CPJ (6) SCC it was held that in a contract of insurance rights and obligation strictly governed by policy of insurance, no exception/relaxation can be made on ground of equity.   

11.   In Sri Gurudath M. Nayak vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another 2011 (1) CPR 287 (NC) it was held that  the loss suffered by complainant in respect of damage caused to material kept in a different place other than premises whose      specific address is mentioned in insurance policy would not be covered.

12.   According to the complainant the fire took place at the premises i.e., Plot No.194, Agricultural Market Committee Yard, G.T. Road, Guntur.   Ex.A-4, B-1 and B-6 clearly revealed that the stocks covered at the above premises were not covered by the insurance policy.  The complainant did not place any other contra decision.  It can therefore be said that the 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.

13.   Neither of the parties filed proposal form.   Ex.A-4 clearly revealed that the deficiency of service if any committed was by the                2^nd opposite party but not by the 1^st opposite party.   But the complainant in page 7 of his complaint mentioned the following:

        “Although the complainant has written several letters to the opposite party No.1 several times to pay the compensation amount the opposite party No.1 has not responded.   The complainant had presented sufficient evidence to the opposite party No.1 in the form of documents and photos to prove that the claim is covered by the policy.   But the opposite party No.1 has not made any attempts to settle the claim.

                It is now 21 months since our claim was submitted and the insurer is not serious to settle the matter.   No relief is claimed against opposite party No.2 but opposite party No.2 was added as a proper and necessary party”.  (Emphasis supplied)    

14.   The affidavit of the complainant was also not attested by an advocate.   The complainant in his affidavit mentioned  that the 2^nd opposite party was added as a party as the policy stood in its name.   It can therefore be said that the complainant did not contend any deficiency of service or negligent attitude by the 2^nd opposite party.   Under those circumstances, no relief can be granted against the 2^nd opposite party.

15.   In view of the aforementioned discussion, we opine that the 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

16.  POINT No.3:-   In view of findings on point No.2 we opine that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, we therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

17.  POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

        Dictated to Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 6th day of              July, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 1^st opposite party:  

                                                                                              PRESIDENT