BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Tuesday the 8^th day of March, 2011

C.C.No 97/10

Between:

Kogoor Kannaiah, S/o Late K.Veeranna,

H.No.64/30, Munsif Court Road, Kurnool-518 001.                                               

…..…Complainant

                                 -Vs-

1. United India Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional Manager,

    D.No.40/304, Hotel Mourya Inn Complex,Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool-518 005.

    2. The Branch Manager,Indian Bank, Bhagya Nagar,

    Ballary Road, Kurnool-518 001.

            ….…Opposite PartIES

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri I. Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate, for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

  ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

       C.C. No. 97/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To pass an award directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant towards the loss estimated by the valuer L.Siva Gopal.

1. To award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for hardship to the complainant.

1. To award interest at the rate of 36% p.a. from the date of the accident.

1. To award cost of the complainant.

And

(d)    To pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-   The complainant is the owner of the house bearing No. 64/30 situated in Munsif Court Road of Kurnool Town.  The complainant availed loan from opposite party No.2 by mortgaging his house.  Opposite party No.2 paid insurance premium to opposite party No.1 on behalf of the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.051100/11/04/11/00000782 covering the risk up to the limit of Rs.5,60,000/-.   The policy is in force from 04-01-2005 to 03-01-2014. Due to the floods on 02-10-2009 the insured house was badly damaged.  It was informed to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 appointed as a surveyor.  The complainant estimated the loss through approved valuer by name L.Siva Gopal.  He estimated the loss at Rs.6,10,696/-.  The complainant submitted the said report to opposite party No.1 along with the claim form.  Subsequently the complainant approached opposite party No.1for settlement of claim in the month of March, 2010.  Opposite party No.1 forced the complainant to sign on the discharge voucher for Rs.29,736/-.  The complainant refused to sign the discharge voucher.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.2 set exparte.  Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that opposite party No.1 issued the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.051100/11/04/11/00000782 for the period from 04-01-2005 to 03-01-2014 for the sum of Rs.5,60,000/- covering the risk of superstructure of the residential building of the complainant.  It is admitted that the building of the complainant was damaged in the floods which occurred on 02-10-2009.  On receipt of the claim intimation opposite party No.1appointed a surveyor by name Mr.Narasimha Murthy.  The said surveyor inspected the damaged house and submitted his report assessing the net loss for Rs.32,873/-.  Later opposite party No.1 offered to settle the claim for Rs.29,736/- towards full and final settlement of the above loss.  The complainant refused to sign the discharge voucher.  The superstructure of the building was covered for total value of Rs.5,60,000/-.  The market value of the building as per the surveyor report is Rs.15,10,488/-.  The building is under insurance.  The private engineer of the complainant not followed the terms and conditions of the policy.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of L.Siva Gopal are filed.  On behalf of the opposite party No.1 Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7. POINT No.1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the house bearing No.64/30 situated in Kurnool Town.  The complainant availed loan from opposite party No.2 by mortgaging his house.  The residential building of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1 covering the risk up to the limit of Rs.5,60,000/-.  Ex.B1 is the policy issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant.  The said policy is in force from 04-01-2005 to 03-01-2014.  Admittedly the house of the complainant was damaged due to the floods occurred on 02-10-2009.  After the receiving the intimation about the damage caused to the house of the complainant, opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor by name Mr.Narasimha Murthy.  The said Mr.Narasimha Murthy filed his report Ex.B2 dated 23-01-2010 assessing the net loss at Rs.32,873/-.

8.     It is contention of the complainant that he sustained loss of Rs.6,10,696/- and that he is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-  up to the limit of the policy.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the report of private surveyor by name L.Siva Gopal.  In Ex.A1 there is no mention at whose instances L.Siva Gopal visited building of the complainant and estimated the loss.  The complainant filed affidavit of L.Siva Gopal wherein it is stated that on requisition of Indian Bank, Kurnool Branch he inspected building of the complainant  and the estimated the loss at Rs.6,10,696/-.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 that opposite party No.1 has no knowledge about the visit of the house of the complainant  by private surveyor by name L.Siva Gopal, that the said L.Siva Gopal is not a approved licensed surveyor of opposite party No.1 and that his report cannot be give any weight.  The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that he got the loss estimated through L.Siva Gopal.  But L.Siva Gopal in his sworn affidavit stated that on requisition of Indian Bank he inspected the building.  The affidavit evidence of L.Siva Gopal that he inspected the building on the requisition of Indian Bank, Kurnool cannot be believed.  The surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 is duly licensed by IRDA. The surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 clearly noted the damage caused to the building of the complainant in his report.  The surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 assessed the loss caused to the building of the complainant at Rs.32,873/-.  The report of the licensed surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 must be given due weight.  The report of the surveyor appointed by complainant cannot be given any weight in view of the report of the licensed company surveyor.  It is the case of the opposite party No.1that it offered Rs.29,736/- to the complainant  and that the complainant  refused to receive the same.  As already stated as per Ex.B2 the insurers liability is Rs.32,873/-.  There is no proper explanation as to why opposite party No.1 offered only Rs.29,736/-.  The report of the surveyor appoint by opposite party No.1 is binding on both parties.  The opposite party No.1 did not pay the net loss of Rs.32,873/- as assessed by surveyor appointed by it.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.

9.     In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.32,873/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e               04-05-2010 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-.  Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 8^th day of March, 2011.

             Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

    MALE MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil              For the opposite parties: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of estimated copy of the approved surveyor L.Siva Gopal.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy No.051104/48/01/34/00048352.

Ex.B2                Photo copy Final survey report dated 23-01-2010.

             Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

    MALE MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

// 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       :