IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 153/2021 (Filed on 16/08/2021)
Complainant : Shajan Kurian,
Galilee Gardens,
Panayakazhippu,
Nagampadom,
Kottayam – 686 001.
(By Adv: Navab M.P)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Geetha Trade Centre,
M.C Road, Nagampadom,
Kottayam.
(By Adv: Francis Thomas)
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Head Office, 19, Nungampakkam,
High Road, IVth Lane,
Chennai – 600 034.
(By Adv: Francis Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Crux of the complaint is as follows :
The complainant is the owner of House no. XIII/363 (Old no. XVI/276) named Galilee Garden, situates in Nagampadom Kottaym. He had insured the said building and it’s contents with the first opposite party under the standard Fire and Special Perils policy with Policy no. 1005001120P101916251 for the period from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2021. The sum insured is Rs.59,25,000/-. The complainant had regularly paid the annual insurance premium to the first opposite party. So much so, the heavy flood that occurred on 7-08-2020 submerged the entire Nagampadom area where the residential building of the complainant situates. The entire premises of the house was filled with water and the flood water entered into the house and it reached upto a level of 4.5 feet from the floor level of his house and it remained there for five days.
The entire house was covered with silt and drinking water well was polluted. The entire wall of the house and the compound wall got dampened by which the wall paintings were damaged. The costly polishing of the three doors, door frames, seven windows, kitchen cabinet, wooden show case, dining tables plus it’s chair, two wooden single cots, one wooden family cot and settee set with teapoy were damaged. Polishing of the marble slabs that are laid on the floor of the house were also spoiled, some cracks were occurred on the concrete roof of his house and polishing of the inter lock tiles laid on the courtyards of the house also ruined. The complainant had to spend a total amount of Rs.4,77,338/- for the maintenance repair of his house.
The complainant had lodged claim for the damages and thereupon the first opposite party deputed an insurance surveyor and on 13-08-2020 he had inspected the house and submitted his report on 30-10-2020 by which he assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.96,226.90 and net loss as only Rs. 86,226.90 after deducting the policy excess of Rs.10,000/-.
It is averred in the complaint that the aforesaid assessment is solely based on technical calculations and not factual and did not show the actual loss sustained by the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,77,338/- along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version contending as follows :
The Complainant had availed a standard Fire and Special Peril Policy for a period from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2021. The said policy was issued subject to the terms and conditions attached to the policy. The averment in the complaint that due to heavy flood occurred on 7-08-2020 that the water reached upto the level of 4.5 feet from floor level of the house and it remained there for five days thereby caused extensive damages to the house and valuable furniture and electrical fittings in the house is not correct. The water entered into the complainant’s compound at a level of 4 feet from ground level and the walls and contents of building were partially damaged. The house hold articles and walls were not fully damaged and hence partial repairs are only necessary. When total ground floor area of building is considered, there is only 60 percent damages to walls, furniture and wood work. The averment in the complaint that the complainant submitted a loss of Rs.4,77,388/- under different heads is not correct. The damages if any calculated by the complainant is without basis and very exorbitant and no such damages were caused to the building and the house hold articles. The surveyor has assessed the damages as per the accepted guidelines of the IRDA.
The insured has submitted the valuation report for the residential building and is done using CPWD 2020 rates. Here according to the report base rate (1150.36/sq feet) of materials is only considered rather than the high end material as claimed by insured in estimate. The surveyor assessed the damages as follows :
(1) Two coats of paint on exterior and interior walls @ Rs. 9/Sq feet
for 8072 sq feet. Since there is only partial damages, 60% taken
for assessment (8072 x 60%) = 4843 x 9 = Rs. 43,587/-
(2)Two coats of paint on compound walls @ Rs. 7/Sq feet
for 2977 Sq feet area. Since there is only partial damages,
60% is taken for assessment (2977x 60%) =1786 x 7 = Rs. 12,502/-
(3) Wood polish work. The total cost for polish is assessed
as Rs. 66469/- and the cost of partial damages ie (60%) = Rs. 39,881/-
(4) Cost of Floor Repolishing : Rs. 15,000/-
(5) Crack Wall Plastering : Rs. 3,000/-
(6) Other Misc Charges : Rs. 12,000/-
Total Rs.1,24,970/-
Since the building is well maintained a depreciation of 23% is only considered for 23 years old building @ 1% per year Rs.28,743/- Net loss Rs. 96,226/-. The surveyor has assessed the loss as per IRDA guidelines and after deducting the policy excess of Rs. 10,000/- an amount of Rs. 86,226/- was given to the complainant on 24-11-2020 as full and final settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A8. Vignesh Anand who is the Assistant Manager of the opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits B1 and B2.
On the basis of the contention of the rival parties we framed the following issues for consideration.
(1) Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged ? (2) Regarding the relief and costs?
POINT Nos.1 & 2
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had insured his residential house bearing no. XIII/363 (Old no. XVI/276) and house hold articles with the first opposite party under the standard Fire and Special Perils policy with Policy No. 1005001120P101916251 for the period from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2021 for a sum insured of Rs.59,25,000/-. According to the complainant on 7-08-2020 heavy flood occurred and entire building was submerged into water and thereby caused extensive damages to the building and furniture and electrical fittings in the house. It is averred in the complaint though he had spent Rs.4,77,388/- for maintenance and repair, the opposite parties allowed only Rs.86,200/- towards the damages. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties stating that the water entered into the complainant’s compound at a level of 4 feet from ground level and the wall and the house hold articles were not fully damaged and hence partial repairs are only necessary.
On perusal of Exhibit B1 policy we can see that the building was insured for Rs. 56,00,000/- and furniture and other contents was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-.
The surveyor wide Exhibit B2 report assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.86,200/- after deducting policy excess of Rs. 10,000/-. On perusal of Exhibit B2 we can see that though he had taken base rate Rs. 1150.36/sq feet as per CPWD 2020 rate he had considered only 60% of the affected area to assess the total damages. Though the exterior and interior walls have 8072 sq feet area he had considered 4843 sq.feet being the 60% of total sq.feet area. Similarly he had considered the damages caused to the window, doors door frames, windows shutter, kitchen cabinet, show case dining table, single cot also to the extend of 60%.
Ext.A3 is the claim prepared and lodged by complainant with the opposite party. The detailed estimate is seen given in Ext.A3 for each work. There are 9 descriptions and the amount required for each work is explained in detail. Exhibits A4 to A8 are the quotations which were issued by various persons at different dates for carrying out for each work of maintenance.
The surveyor visited the property on 13-08-2020 and prepared Ext.B2 report and assessed the damage for Rs.86,200/-. On examination of Exhibits A4 to A8 we can see that these quotations are prepared after the inspection of the surveyor.
The complainant did not produce any evidence to discredit loss assessed by the surveyor. As discussed earlier there is vast difference between the amount shown in Ext.A3 and in Ext.B2. The total amount shown in Ext.A3 is Rs.4,77,338/- whereas the amount shown in Ext.B2 is Rs.86,200/-. However it is noticed that the amount shown in Ext.B2 is on the lower side. For example the amount shown for painting is Rs.43,587/- in Ext.B2 calculating the plinth area as 4843 sq.ft. Per contra the amount shown in Ext.A4 for applying cement primer, ceiling etc. and for painting 2 coats over walls, ceiling etc. is Rs.1,41,260/-. In Ext.B2 the amount is calculated for 4843 sq.ft of plinth area. As a matter of fact the area will be much more because painting is to be done in the exterior wall and in the interior wall and it will depend upon the walls of the building. Since there is vast difference seen in Ext.A3 and Ext.B2 some guess work is to be needed. It is also noticed that Ext.A3 was prepared without giving notice to the opposite party. The complainant ought to have filed a commission application before this Commission and prepared an assessment and it would have been better to arrive a just decision. Opposite party can only provide amount for curing the defects. After comparing Ext.A3 and B2 we are of the opinion that Ext.A3 is very much on the higher side whereas Ext.B2 is on the lower side. Hence amount cannot be awarded on the basis of both reports. However we are of the opinion that since Ext.B2 is on the lower side 100% increase can be given to the estimate covered by Ext.B2. It has come out in evidence that opposite party has already paid an amount of Rs.86,200/- to the complainant and he accepted the same under protest. So we are of the opinion that the same amount ie, Rs.86,200/- will be a reasonable amount required for repairing of the building. As stated earlier we cannot arrive the amount since the relevant datas are not available and this is done only on the basis of a guess work and comparing both the reports.
Complainant is seeking an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service. However it is seen that Rs.86,200/- assessed by the surveyor was given to the complainant by the opposite party. We cannot expect the opposite party to pay the entire amount as demanded by the complainant on the strength of Ext.A3. In the said circumstances we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled for any compensation since there was no deficiency of service. These points are found accordingly. In the result complaint is allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.86,200/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) along with interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of order ie, 30-06-2023 till realization from the opposite party.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost from the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Copy of Insurance Policy Certificate No.1005001120P101916251
Ext.A2 - Photographs(11 Nos) and CD of complainant’s house filled
with water
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Claim lodged by the complainant to the
Ist opposite party dated 02/09/2020
Ext.A4 - Copy of painting work quotation issued by M.C Alex,
Muthalakkonathu, Rosalayam, Kottayam dated 22/08/2020
Ext.A5 - Copy of Polish work quotation issued by Joy Joseph dated 19/08/2020
Ext.A6 - Copy of Mosaic & Marble polishing quotation issued
by P.T. Joseph dated 28/08/2020
Ext.A7 - Copy of quotation for cement plastering work issued by
V.X. Varghese dated 18/08/2020
Ext.A8 - Copy of quotation for painting work issued by K.N. Shibu,
Karickaparambil dated 26/08/2020
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Ext.B1 - Copy of Policy with conditions
Ext.B2 - Copy of Survey Report By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
