BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Wednesday the 14th day of November, 2012 C.C.No.39/2012 Between: Sri.Lakshminarayana Traders, Represented by its Proprietor G.Lakshmi Narayana, S/o G.Viswanatham,D.No.30/253, Mundy Bazar,Kurnool – 518 001. …Complainant -Vs- 1. The Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, H.No.40/342A, 1st Floor, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool – 518 001. 2. State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, 3/158, Old Town Branch, Kurnool – 518 001 ...Opposite ParTies . This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.D.A.Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri.V.V.Krishnama Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.39/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,21,300/- towards stock damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of incident i.e., 02-10-2009 till the date of realization; (b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; (c) To pay the cost of the compliant; And (d) To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is running its business in Door No.13/253, Mundy Bazar, Kurnool. The complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 bank and hypothecated its stock in trade in favour of the opposite party No.2 bank. Opposite party No.2 bank insured the stock of the complainant with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No.551001/48/08/9800000229. The policy was in force from 31-12-2008 to 30-12-2009. On 02-10-2009 the complainant’s shop was submerged in flood water and entire stock was damaged. The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to estimate the loss. The complainant submitted the claim to the opposite parties. But on 25-03-2010 the complainant received a letter from opposite party No.1 stating that the policy covers the stock in the shop bearing D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool but not the stock in the shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Floor Bazar, Kurnool. The claim was repudiated by opposite party No.1. After the damage of the stock it was shifted to shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Floor Bazar, Kurnool for the purpose of drying. The Municipal Corporation asked the complainant to remove the damaged stock. Due to the negligent attitude of both parties the complainant suffered mentally. The complainant is entitled to receive the amount. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. On intimation of the damage of stock the surveyor by name Sri.B.P.K.Reddy was appointed for assessment of loss. The complainant himself took the surveyor and got inspected the loss in D.No.1-478 A, Flower Bazar, Kurnool. The surveyor submitted his report. The address of the shop mentioned in the policy is D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool. Where as the loss occurred to the stock in shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Flower Bazar, Kurnool. The change of risk location was never informed to opposite party. There is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is filed with an intention to gain wrongfully. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The shop bearing D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool was submerged in flood water on 02-10-2009. The complainant never informed to opposite party No.2that the stock was shifted to shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Flower Bazar, Kurnool after flood. The complainant made correspondence with opposite party No.1. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A9 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and sworn affidavit of Sri.B.P.K.Reddy, Surveyor are filed. Sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant was running business in D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool. The complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 bank and hypothecated the stock in favour of opposite party No.2 bank. It is also admitted that opposite party No.2 bank insured the stock in shop bearing D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued the policy Ex.B1. The policy was in force from 31-12-2008 to 30-12-2009. The assured sum under the policy is Rs.1,02,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the stock in the shop was damaged due to flood water on 02-10-2009. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that the stock in his shop was totally damaged due to flood water on 02-10-2009. Opposite party No.2 in its written version also admitted that the shop bearing D.No.13/253 was submerged in flood water on 02-10-2009. Admittedly opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor. The surveyor filed his report Ex.B3. 8. Admittedly the stock in shop bearing D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool was insured with opposite party No.1 under the policy Ex.B1. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.B1 policy that the complainant is carrying on its business in shop bearing D.No.13/253, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool. The surveyor in his report Ex.B3 mentioned that he visited the shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Kurnool on 21-10-2009. The surveyor in his sworn affidavit also stated that the complainant took him and got inspected the stock in shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Flower Bazar, Kurnool. The surveyor assessed the net loss of the stock in shop bearing D.No.1-478 A at Rs.92,000/-. Opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the policy does not cover the risk of the stock in D.No.1-478 A. The complainant submitted Ex.B2 intimation letter dated 19-10-2009 to opposite party No.1. In the said letter also there is no mention that he shifted the stock from the shop bearing D.No.13/243 to the shop bearing D.No.1-478 A, Kurnool. No mention is made in Ex.B2 that the stock in the shop bearing D.no.13/253 was damaged due to floods water on 02-10-2009. It is also not the case of the complainant that he informed the shifting of the stock from the shop bearing D.No.13/253 to the shop bearing D.No.1-478 A. Admittedly the stock bearing D.No.1-478A was not covered by the Ex.B1 policy. It is not the case of the complainant that he informed about the shifting of the stock to the opposite parties from one shop to another shop. As Ex.B1 policy does not cover the stock in the shop bearing D.No.1-478 A the complainant is not entitled for any amount. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied on a decision reported in I (2007) CPJ 185 (NC) where in it is observed that the insured cannot be made to suffer for negligence of opposite party because of failure of opposite party to record extension of place of business, despite full details being given. In the present case on hand it is not the case of the complainant that he informed the opposite parties about the shifting of the stock from D.No.13-253 to shop bearing D.No.1-478 A. There is no material on record to show that the stock in the shop bearing D.No.13-253 for which the policy was issued by opposite party No.1, was damaged. The policy issued by opposite party No.1 is not related to the stock damaged in shop bearing D.No.1-478 A. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. 9. 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 14th day of November, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 25-03-2010. Ex.A2 Photo copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 25-03-2010. Ex.A3 Photo copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 10-10-2009. Ex.A4 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool dated 30-03-2010. Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter by complainant to opposite party No.1 dated 08-06-2011. Ex.A6 Photo copy of Statement of Account of complainant issued by State Bank of India Old Town, Kurnool dated 24-06-2011. Ex.A7 Photo copy of Fire Claim Form dated 29-10-2009. Ex.A8 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.551001/48/09/9800000335. Ex.A9 Ledger Extract of the complainant issued by opposite party No.2 Bank. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Policy bearing No.551001/48/09/9800000335. Ex.B2 Photo copy of Intimation Letter dated 19-10-2009 along with documents. Ex.B3 Photo copy of Survey Report dated 15-03-2010. Ex.B4 Photo copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 25-03-2010. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER 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 : | 
