The instant complaint case has been filed by Madoora Tea Company being represented by its proprietor Shri Atri Kumar Dutta alias Atri Kumar Dutta Choudhury of Steamerghat Road, Silchar town. Brief facts of the complaint case are that complainant Madoora Tea Company was insured with the Opposite Party United India Insurance Company Ltd. under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy vide no. 1305001119P114901798 for the period of one year w.e.f. 20/02/2020 to 19/02/2021. That on 15/04/2020 building of the complainant Tea company covered by the said policy sustained substantial damage caused by a Tornado. The matter was intimated to the Insurer i.e., O.P. Insurance company with claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- . Thereafter the damages were surveyed by the Assessor of the O.P. Insurance company. Subsequently the O.P. vide letter dated 26/08/2020 treated the claim of the complainant as no claim. It has been stated by the complainant that their claim is genuine and by repudiating the claim the O.P. has caused disservice. As a result the complainant has suffered both mentally and financially. That the complainant for repairing of the said building had to incur more than Rs, two lakh. Under the circumstances the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.P. United India Insurance Company Ltd. submitted written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cause or reason for filing this complaint, that the claim is barred by limitation, that the complaint petition is not maintainable etc. etc. The answering O.P. denies the allegations contained in the complaint petition. It is stated by the O.P. that after receipt of the claim made by the complainant the O.P. Insurance Co. for alleged damage of building occurred due to tornado engaged a Surveyor for survey of insured building and to submit report. Subsequently, on receipt of the survey report and on the basis of the report the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Under the circumstances it is stated by the O.P. that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in the case and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
In support of the case Sri A. K. Dutta Choudhury has submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 . On the other hand, from the side of O.P. evidence on affidavit of Mr. Burhan Uddin Hazari has been submitted as DW-1 and evidence on affidavit of Sri N. R. Paul has been submitted as DW-2. PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2 were cross-examined by the opposite side. Both parties exhibited some documents. In addition, both sides submitted written argument. We have gone through the evidence on record and have also heard oral argument advanced by the respective learned lawyer of the parties.
In his evidence PW-1 has stated that he is the sole proprietor of the Madoora Tea Company which is insured with the O.P. Insurance Company under standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period of one year i.e., w.e.f. 20/02/2020 to 19/02/2021. It is stated that on 15/04/2020 building of the company covered by the said Insurance policy sustained substantial damage caused by a tornado. Accordingly the matter was informed to the Insurer and claim was lodged. The damages were duly surveyed by the Assessor of the O.P. Insurance Company. On perusal of the evidence of DW-1 & DW-2 it comes out that it is not disputed in the case that the alleged building of the complainant Company was insured with the O.P. It Is also not in dispute that the alleged building got damaged and on receipt of the information the O.P. Insurance Company engaged its Surveyor to survey the damages and loss.
According to DW-1, the Divisional Manager of the O.P. Company, Ext.-B is the survey report and Ext.-B(1) is the photograph of the damaged building. On the other hand, according to the evidence of DW-2, the Surveyor, after receipt of appointment from the Insurance Company in respect of claim case he visited the spot and physically inspected the alleged damaged property. DW-2 has identified his Survey Report as exhibited by the DW-1. As per the evidence of DW-2 a) the alleged building was very old and dilapidated, b) the repairing / renovation was long overdue , c) kept unused & unrepaired for a very long period, d) The utility period is over due to normal wear and tear. DW-2 has further maintained that in his opinion the damage was not exactly due to storm/ tornado but due to the points as cited in his Survey Report. The evidence of DW-1 shows that on the basis of the Report they repudiated the claim of the complainant.
As it reveals from the record that on the date of incident the alleged property was under insurance coverage and more so that property is under continuous renewal of insurance coverage by the O.P. Insurance Company so at this stage they can not take any such plea that the alleged building is very old and dilapidated and the repairing & renovation was long overdue, kept unused & unrepaired for a very long period etc. Moreover in his evidence DW-2, the Surveyor, has not categorically denied that tornado can not cause the alleged damage. As such we are of the view that in the present case the complainant is entitled to get relief in the case and by denying the claim the O.P. had caused disservice towards the complainant. There is also no other defect in the case. In the case the complainant has exhibited Ext.-2 which shows that the estimated cost of repairs of the damages would be Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh ). Though the O.P. has not stated anything on that aspect but the said amount appears to be excessive in comparison of the damages as shown in Ext. B(1) picture.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate if an amount of Rs. one lakh fifty thousand is awarded towards cost of repairing. Accordingly, it is ordered that the O.P. Insurance Company shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only towards cost for repairing of alleged damages of insured house. In addition, the O.P. shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) towards disservice, mental sufferance etc. and further amount of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand) towards cost of litigation. The O.P. shall pay the entire awarded amount within a period of 90 (ninety) days else interest would accrue upon the amount @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment till payment. With the above the case stands allowed on contest.
The judgment is delivered on this 28th day of August’ 2023 with our seal and signature.
