HYDERABAD
C.D.No. 27/2004
Between :
M/s.Konda Rangaswamy, Fertilisers
and Pesticides, Mahabubnagar,
Represented by its Proprietor K.Bala Prasad,
S/o.K.Ranga Swamy, age 34 yrs.,
O/c. Fertilizers business,
R/o H.No. 1-6-42/23, Palabgutta,
Mahabubnagar Town,
Mahabubnagar Dist. …Complainant
And
1.The Branch Manager,
. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Near Clock tower,
Mahabubnagar Town, 509001
Mahabubnagar Dist.
2. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office, 40-439, Station Road,
Post Box No.45, Kurnool.518 001.
3. The Managing Director,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Registered Head Office, 24, Whites road,
Chennai. ….Opp.parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr. M.Hamsa Raj
Counsel for the opp.parties : Mr.K.Kishore Kumar Reddy
CORAM :THE HON’BLE .JUSTICE SRI D. APPA RAO , PRESIDENT
SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy , Hon’ble Member)
***
This is a complaint filed under Section 17 a (i) of C.P.Act to direct the opp.parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.18,10,572/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of realisation, to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs towards the financial , physical and mental sufferings of the complainant and to award costs of the complaint.
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant is a proprietory concern represented by its Proprietor K.Bala Prasad. The complainant is a dealer of fertilizers and pesticides and used to keep all his stocks in their business premises at D.No.2-10-17 and 2-10-57, situated at Old Gung , Mahabubnagar and used to insure his buildings and stock every year with the opp.party company. The complainant took three insurance policies from the opp.parties under Policy no.051103/11/13/6908/98 for fertilizer , pesticides and godown for Rs.5 lakhs dt.14.9.1998, Policy no. no.051103/11/13/6909/98 for fertilizer, seeds etc. for Rs.3 lakhs dt.14.9.1998 , Policy no. 051103/11/13/6910/98 for shop and residential building for Rs.7 lakhs dt.14.9.1998 . The said three policies were valid from 14.9.1998 to 13.9.1999 . On 1.11.1998 at about 3 a.m. i.e. intervening night of 30.10.1998 and 1.11.1998 at the complainant’s business premises fire accident occurred and substantial damage to the building and total damage to the stock to the tune of Rs.18,10,572/- was caused as per the estimation . The complainant has informed the opp.party no.1 and a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and damage caused to the assets of the complainant. The surveyor has inspected the premises and submitted his report to the opp.party. Meanwhile the police wrongly implicated the complainant into a criminal case alleging that the complainant was responsible for the fire accident. The Hon’ble Addl. Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar has acquitted the complainant from the said offence vide his judgment in S.C.No.280 of 2001 dt.22.12.2001 by holding that the complainant did not commit any such offence. The complainant filed claim forms to the opp.party through his letter dt. 30.11.2002 with a request to process the same as early as possible. Instead of processing the claim of the complainant , the opp.party no.2 sent a letter on 16.4.2003 alleging that the complainant is responsible for the fire accident as such not entitled to claim the policy amount. The complainant has immediately sent a reply disclosing the real facts of the false implications by the police and also enclosed the copy of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Addl. Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar . Subsequently the complainant has addressed two letters dt.23.5.2003 and 24.8.2003 to the opp.parties requesting to settle the claim . As the claim was not settled by the opp.parties , the complainant issued legal notice dt.20.10.2003 to all the opp.parties for which the opp.party no.1 issued reply dt. 10.11.2003 refusing to settle the claim and the opp.party no.3 sent a reply dt.4.11.2003 stating that their Regional Office will reply to the said notice. Hence the complainant approached this Commission to direct the opp. parties to pay Rs.18,10,572/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of realisation, to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the financial, physical and mental sufferings and to pay costs .
The opposite party no.1 filed counter contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The opp.party stated that after the complainant informed about the fire accident they have appointed a surveyor and he has inspected the premises on 2.11.1998 The complainant has not cooperated with the surveyor by submitting relevant documents for assessing the loss . The complainant did not produce relevant books of accounts for verification of the surveyor. The police who investigated the matter on the complaint of the complainant found that the Proprietor of the complainant company Mr.K.Bala Prasad/Insured blasted the premises and set fire to the damaged premises engaging two hired culprits. Infact from the samples of the articles recovered from the scene of occurrence in the presence of Panchas it was reported by the Forensic Science Laboratory , Hyderabad on analysis that traces of flammable Hydrocarbon component of mineral oil were found The charge sheet was filed against the complainant (A1) and two others U/s. 304,436,420 & 109 IPC. Investigator appointed by the opp.party submitted his report confirming about the fraudulent act of the complainant . The complainant had attempted to set fire to the premises and blasted the same engaging two hired culprits who unfortunately died subsequently in the hospital due to burns over their bodies. The surveyor assessed the loss to the building only at Rs.41,225/- and stocks worth at Rs.14,100/- alone were found in the shop . The stock statement submitted to the bankers reflected a sum of Rs.8,36,467/- of fertilizers and Rs.5,42,435/- of pesticides. Inspite of repeated requests made by the surveyor the insured could not produce records for verification of the said stock files. The assessment made by the chartered accountant of the complainant is nothing but a fabricated report/assessment. The complainant is not entitled to any damages or compensation as claimed by him. The opp.party stated that the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed evidence affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to Exs.A17 Evidence affidavits are filed on behalf of opp.parties and insurance surveyor. Exs.B1 to B.22 documents are filed on behalf of the opp.parties.
The points for determination arises in this complaint are 1.Whether there was any fire accident occurred? and 2.Whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim amount?
There is no dispute with regard to the complainant is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor K.Bala Prasad having business premises at D.no.2-10-17 and 2-10-57 situated at Old Gung , Mahabubnagar and he has insured his stocks, godown, shop and residential building under three insurance polices which were valid from 14.9.1998 to 13.9.99 . The said insurance policies were valid on the date of fire accident. The opp.parties also did not dispute with regard the validity of the insurance policies and also about fire accident in the premises of the complainant.
The complainant submits that on account of the fire accident stocks stored in his business premises were burnt and there was damage to the building and stock to a tune of Rs.18,10,572/- . To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed Ex.A1 valuation certificate which was issued by Municipal Licenced surveyor in which the value of the building and land are assessed at Rs.18,13,608/- . Ex.A2 is the Assessment Order of Commercial Tax Officer Mahabubnagar. Dt.18.11.97.
Ex.A3 abstract cum estimate for the reconstruction, renovation, additions , alterations for shop and house of the complainant at Rs.4,90,000/- and at Rs.4,25,000/- . The said estimates were given by Municipal Licensed Surveyor and counter signed by the Asst. Executive Engineer, PR., (U.K. A.P.) Mahabubnagar . Without filing evidence affidavit of the said persons and without proof, the estimates of the valuation of damage cannot be taken into consideration. Ex.A5 is the audit report under Section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said audit report filed by the complainant along with statement of affairs as on 31.3.1999, profit and loss account list of sundry creditors . The complainant has not examined any person to prove the estimates made in the said audit report.
A criminal case was also filed against the complainant. Ex.A6 is the judgement copy in S.C.No.280/2001 on the file of Sessions Court , Mahabubnagar Division. In the said case the complainant along two to other persons were charged for the offence under Section 304 part I IPC and a judgement was given stating that the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.304 part I , 402 and 109 IPC and is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. . Ex.A7 is the letter dt. 11.9.2002 addressed by the complainant to the opp.party requesting to send the claim forms . Ex.A8 is the letter dt. 20.9.2002 addressed by the opp.party to the complainant stating that they are sending the claim forms and requesting to submit the same duly completed in all respects . Ex.A9 is the letter dt. 30.11.02 addressed by the complainant to the opp.party stating that he is sending the claim forms duly filled and signed and requesting to settle the claim at an early date. Ex.A10 is the letter dt.16.4.2003 from the opp.party to the complainant informing that the investigation done by the police clearly establishes that the complainant used fraudulent means to claim insurance from the company by setting fire to his shop and hence his claim was repudiated . Ex.A11 is the letter dt. 23.5.2003 from complainant to the opp.party stating that the police without knowing the real facts charged him and requesting to send the assessment made by the opp.parties. Ex.A12 is the letter dt. 24.8.2003 from the complainant to the opp.party requesting to settle the claim and send the copy of assessment report for his reference at an early date . Ex.A13 is the letter dt.3.10.2003 addressed by the 2nd opp.party to the complainant stating that they have once again verified all the material papers which were furnished by the complainant and found that the claim is not payable . Ex.A14 is the legal notice dt. 20.10.2003 issued by the complainant to the opp.parties demanding to pay the compensation and damages. Ex.A15 is the letter dt. 4.11.2003 from the opp.party to the counsel for the complainant stating that they have taken up the matter with their Regional Office , Hyderabad along with a copy of the legal notice and he will hear from them shortly. Ex.A16 is the reply notice dt.10.11.2003 issued by the opp.party counsel to the counsel for the complainant stating that claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant filed C.C.I.A.No.613/08 to receive the documents as additional evidence . The said I.A. was allowed and documents which are stock statements are received and they are marked as Ex.A17.
Ex.B1 is Fire Policies valid from 14.9.1998 to13.9.99 for Rs. 5 lakhs, 3 lakhs and Rs,.7 lakhs. . Ex.B2 is the First Information Report . Ex.B3 is the charge sheet . Ex.B4 is the news item in Enadu News paper stating that in the police investigation it was revealed that the complainant fraudulently blasted their premises by engaging two persons. Ex.B5 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.B6 is the report/opinion dt. 8.12.98 submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory to the Sub Divisional Police Officer. Ex.B7 is the letter dt.18.11.1998 from the Insurance Surveyor & loss Assessor to the complainant requesting to produce the documents as mentioned in the said letter so as to complete the loss assessment and report back to the insurers . Ex.B8 is the letter from the opposite party to the surveyor asking to send the letter to the insured for the necessary action Ex.B9 is the reminder letter dt. 7.1.99 from the surveyor to the complainant . Ex.B10 is the letter dt. 18.2.99 from the complainant to the insurance surveyor requesting to give one month time for furnishing the required documents for the disposal of the file. Ex.B11 is the letter from the surveyor to the complainant stating that books of accounts such as day book , ledgers, stock book etc were not produced for verification and they will inform to the insurers to treat the claim as no claim. Ex.B12 is the letter from the complainant to the surveyor requesting to grant 60 days time for sending the required documents. Ex.B13 is the letter dt.20.9.2002 from the 1st opp.party to the complainant requesting to submit the claim form duly completed in all respects and signed by him at the earliest. Ex.B14 is the letter dt. 30.11.2002 from the complainant to the 1st opp.party stating that he is sending the claim forms duly filled and signed and requesting to settle the claim at an early date. Ex.B15 is the letter dt. 16.4.2003 from the opp.party to the complainant repudiating the claim of the complainant . Ex. B16 and B17 are the letters Dt. 23.5.2003 and 24.8.2003 from the complainant to the 1st opp.party requesting to send the assessment made by them for his reference and settle his claim at an early date. Ex.B18 is the legal notice dt. 20.10.2003 issued by the complainant to the opp.parties . Ex.B19 is the reply notice dt. 10.11.2003 issued by the opp.parties to the complainant .Ex.B20 is the letter dt. 3.10.2003 from the opp.party to the complainant stating that the claim is not payable. Ex.B21 is the surveyor report . Ex.B22 is the letter dt. 12.7.99 form the Sri M.V.Subba Reddy , investigator to the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. stating that he is submitting investigation report in duplicate
