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
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 20th day of July, 2011
C.C.No.154/10
BETWEEN:
Shaik Abdul Sattar Timber Depot, By its proprietor, S.Basher Ahammed, S/o Adbul Ghani,
R/o D.No.2/2, Mamidalapadu, Kurnool - 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,
D.No.40/304, Mourya Inn Complex (Ground Floor) Bhagyanagar, Kurnool 518 004.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C. No. 154/10
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party for the payment of:-
(a) Assured sum of Rs.8,28,065/- with interest 12% P.A. from 02-10-2009;
- Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony;
- Rs.20,000/- as cost of the case;
2. Briefly the complainant is doing Timber business at D.No.2/2 of Mamidalapadu Village with address of correspondence as D.No.15/186-B7 Khadakpura, Kurnool. He took loan from Syndicate Bank Main branch, Kurnool for trading timber logs. Syndicate Bank took insurance policy from opposite party covering the risk of stocks in the premises at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu for the period from 28-01-2009 to 28-01-2010 under the policy No.051100/11/08/11/00001135 for Rs.11,00,000/- by paying necessary premium to opposite party. On 02-10-2009 there was a devastating flood for Tungabhadra and Hundri rivers. The complainant timber depot at 2/2 Mamidalapadu was inundated under flood water more than 30 hours and he suffered loss to his logs estimating Rs.9,12,815/-. Mr.M.R.Srinivasan surveyor, appointed by opposite party inspected the premises, prepared a draft assessment report and estimated the loss suffered by the complainant to be Rs.8,28,065/-. In spite of the report of the surveyor, the claim was rejected, mentioning that “location differs, hence the claim is not admissible”. Aggrieved by the letter of opposite party, this complaint is filed before the Forum by the complainant seeking appropriate reliefs.
3. Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on filed by the complainant in support of his case.
4. Admitting the insurance of policy, covering the risk of stocks of wood at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu, the opposite party denied his liability to the complainant’s claim. Opposite party admits that D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu was drowned in floods on 02-10-2009 and insurance company has to indemnity is terms of the policy if stocks of wood stored in the above premises suffer loss. But there was no stock on that day at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu. More over insurance company has no liability to the damaged stock at D.No.15/186-B7 Khadakpura. Denying the appointment of M.R.Srinivasan as surveyor, opposite party avered that his report is biased, favorable to the complainant without any iota of substantiation. All the material filed by the complainant in his support, barer the address at Khadakpura, has no connection with the insurance policy. Further the records disclose that the sawmill does not belong to the complainant and proves that this claim is false. The second surveyor report making the first survey report unreliable also strengthen the stand of opposite party. According to opposite party, from what is stated above, the repudiation of complainants’ claim is in order, with no deficiency of service, hence it is prayed for the dismissal of the case.
5. Opposite party filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to B18 to substantiate his case.
6. Both parties filed their written arguments.
7. Now the points for consideration are:-
a. Whether the complainant had made out any case to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party?
b. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed by him?
c. To what relief?
8. POINTS 1 & 2:- Ex.B1 Insurance policy issued to Financier Syndicate Bank covering the premises of Sawmill at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu, from the period 28-01-2009 to 27-01-2010 against the risk on the stocks of wood is logs and/or in sizes for Rs.11,00,000/- for which bank paid Rs.5,105/- as premium. The policy was in force on 02-10-2009, the day complainant suffered loss to his logs, Ex.B2 the claim form. Ex.B5 the draft assessment report and loss estimate for Rs.8,28,065/- prepared by M.R.Srinivasan, Surveyor under the instructions of opposite party. Ex.B11, the letter of opposite party seeking clarification from M.R.Srinivasan, and Ex.B10 is clarification to Ex.B11 stating that the address 15/186-B7 Khadakpura given in D.F.O. and other connected papers is for communication purpose only. Ex.A1, the repudiation letter from opposite party mentioning “location differs, hence the claim is not admissible”. Ex.B4, the investigation report prepared by J.S.V. Kameswar Rao under the instructions of opposite party, revealing that the address as per records submitted by the insured is 15/186-B7 Khadakpura is not covered by the policy and the insured had not furnished any proof regarding the stocks at insured premises 2/2 Mamidalapadu.
The question is whether the complainant was having logs at 2/2 Mamidalapadu or 15/186-B7 Khadakpura. The first surveyor in his report noted the lying of logs of wood at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu and prepared loss estimate admitting 15/186-B7 Khadakpura as address for correspondence. The renewal of policy and third party affidavits filed by complainant support that the complainant was having logs at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu. If he was not having stocks at D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu, he would not have taken the policy on that premises and would have taken the policy on Khadakpura address if he had kept the stocks there, by paying the same premium. Syndicate Bank also would not have been financed the complainant on D.No.2/2 Mamidalapadu if the stock was not there.
The insurance company produced two different reports as to the loss caused to the stocks. First report favorable to the complainant prepared by M.R.Srinivasan, after visiting the location, contained careful analysis of events, while second report intended to benefit to opposite party prepared by J.S.V.Kameswar Rao, not bothering to verify the insured premises is hypothetical and speculative. Insurance company cannot discord the report prepared by M.R.Srinivasan under its own instructions. The second surveyor erroneously approached the problem by concentrating on the records submitted by the complainant while rejecting several reports submitted by first surveyor. The insurable interest of the complainant also has not changed even after the dispute as he renewed the policy under Ex.A5. The complainant relied on citations 2010 (4) A.C.J – 2580 – S.C. and 2003(1) C.P.J 33 N.C. = 2004 (1) C.C.J – 537 N.C. where in the appointment of second surveyor by the opposite party is not justified and the amount of loss assessed by the first surveyor is allowed.
Further it is not the case of opposite party that complainant should carry out wood business with the permission of forest department, or in his own saw mill or his shop and depot should be in the same premises or the case of sales tax. Thus opposite party was deficient in its service in rejecting the claim of the complainant ignoring the policy by appointing the second surveyor and the complainant is entitled for compensation.
9. POINT No.3:- The claim of Rs.8,28,065/- is reasonable and it is allowed since this loss was assessed by the surveyor. For the delay in settling the claim, that caused harassment and mental agony opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed directing opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.8,28,065/- as compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and also Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the case. The time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 20th of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Repudiation letter dated 20-08-2010.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of letter issued by complainant to
M.R Srinivasan Surveyor, Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Memo on behalf of the complainant in CC No.154/2010.
Ex.A4 Certificate dated 18-05-2011 issued by
Syndicate Bank Kurnool to complainant.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Insurance policy
No.051100/11/10/11/00001110 dated 28-01-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party :-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Insurance policy No.051100/11/08/11/00001135 dated 28-01-2009.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Fire Insurance Claim Form
dated 28-01-2009.
Ex.B3 Certificate given by Electricity Department
dated 24-09-2009.
Ex.B4 Surveyor report of J.S.V.Kameswara Rao
dated 16-08-2010.
Ex.B5 Surveyor report of M.R.Srinivasan dated 26-03-2010.
Ex.B6 Surveyor report of M.R.Srinivasan dated 05-05-2010.
Ex.B7 Letter dated 23-01-2009 by complainant to Divisional
Forest Officer, Kurnool.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Form-1 for application of Saw Mill/Saw Mill &
Depot Licence Renewal dated 23-01-2009.
Ex.B9 Photo copy of Challan dated 31-12-2008.
Ex.B10 Letter dated 20-05-2010 by surveyor to opposite party.
Ex.B11 Photo copy of letter dated 10-05-2010 by opposite party
to Surveyor.
Ex.B12 Photo copy of dated 24-08-2009.
Ex.B13 Photo copy of Value Added Tax Registration Certificate
dated 17-03-2009.
Ex.B14 Photo copy of Form VAT 200 Monthly Return for Value
Added Tax dated 18-04-2009.
Ex.B15 Photo copy of Stock Statement April 2009 to
September 2009.
Ex.B16 Photo copy of A Bunch of Sales Bills.
Ex.B17 Photo copy of A Bunch of Purchase bills.
Ex.B18 Photo copy of purchase statements for the year 2008 to
2009 bills dated 14-03-2009.
Ex.B19 Photo copy of purchase statement for the period from
01-04-2009 to 30-09-2009.
Ex.B20 Photo copy of Sales statement for the period from
01-04-2009 to 30-09-2009.
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 :
