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

Monday the 13^th day of February, 2012

C.C.No.112/2011

Between:

M/s Narmada Seeds by its Proprietor,M.Chow Reddy,

D.No.30-505, Vivekananda Street, Boggu Line, Nandyal - 518 501, Kurnool District.                           

                        …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

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

   Branch Office, H.No.2-415-B, N.K. Road, Nandyal - 518 501.

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

   Divisional Office,  Mourya Inn Complex,Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool District - 518 004.   

...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 as called absent and Sri Ch.Joga Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                    ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

C.C. No. 112/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 Praying to direct the opposite parties:-

1. To pay Rs.1,39,093/- towards the damages caused to the stocks of complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of damage;

1.   To award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties;

And

1. To award costs of Rs.10,000/-;

And

1.  To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the proprietor of the Narmada Seeds Unit, Located in D.No.30-505, Vivekananda Street, Boggu Line, Nandyal, Kurnool District.  The complainant insured the said unit with opposite party No.1 under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.51102/11/7/11/00000211 for Rs.20,00,000/-.  The period of policy is from 22-06-2007 to 21-06-2008.  In the floods which occurred due to cyclone, on 22-06-2007 at about 6.00 P.M., the flood water entered into the premises of the said unit and the stock was damaged.  The complainant submitted a claim form and opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 appointed a surveyor.  The said surveyor has inspected the premises and submitted his report to opposite party No.2 assessing the net loss of Rs.1,39,093/-.  The complainant approached the opposite parties several times and requested for settlement of his claim, but they did not respond.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 22-04-2011 to opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not give any reply.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 called absent.

Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is barred by limitation.  The opposite party No.2 denied that the opposite parties issued policy to the said complainant and floods occurred on that date, and the stock was damaged due to floods water.  It is also denied that the complainant submitted a claim form and opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 have appointed surveyor.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 4.    On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party No.2 Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is filed.

5.     Complainant and Opposite party No.2 filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by period of limitation?

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

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

1. To what relief?

7.      POINT No.i:- It is the case of the opposite party No.2 that opposite parties not issued the policy to the complainant.  As seen from Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 it is clear that the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.51102/11/7/11/00000211 to the complainant for the said unit under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for Rs.20,00,000/-.  The period of policy is 22-06-2007 to 21-06-2008.  It is the case of the complainant that on 22-06-2007 at about 6.00 P.M. the flood water entered into the premises of the said unit and the stock was damaged, that the complainant made a claim and opposite parties 1 and 2 appointed a surveyor and the said surveyor inspected the premises and submitted his report to opposite party No.2 that the opposite parties not settled the claim though the complainant got issued legal notice on 22-04-2011 under Ex.A2 and the acknowledgements marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4.   The complainant in support his contention relied on a decision of National Commission reported in 2006 (2) CPR 85 (NC) National Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Sukhdev Singh Gill and Others, where in the Honourable National Commission held that the Insurance Company ought to have sent a letter of repudiating the claim, mere a letter of “No Claim” cannot be acceptable as final repudiation, as there is no repudiation the complaint is not barred by time.  In the present case the opposite parties denied the submission of claim form by the complainant so there is no question of repudiation arises.  It is the case of the opposite party No.2 that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation under section 24 (a) of C.P. Act, 1986.  The period of limitation to file a complaint   before the District Forum is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  In the present case the accident took place on 22-06-2007.  The complaint is filed on 03-08-2001.  The complainant could not place any material on record with regard to his submission of claim form to opposite parties.  So the cause of action arose on the date on which the accident occurred.  The complaint is filed after four years from the date of floods.  Mere issuance of legal notice by the complainant to opposite parties does not give fresh cause of action.  Hence the complaint is barred by period of limitation.   

1. Points 2 and 3:- As per Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 it is clear that the opposite parties issued policy to the complainant.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that on 22-06-2007 flood water entered into the premises that the stock was damaged, that the complainant submitted a claim to opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite parties appointed a surveyor by name Sri M.R.Srinivasan, that the said surveyor inspected the premises and submitted his report to opposite party No.2 assessing net loss of Rs.1,39,093/-.  The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 22-04-2011 under Ex.A2 and acknowledged the same by the opposite parties under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited a decision reported in  2011 (3) CPR 103 (NC) New India Assurance Company Limited -Vs- Dr.M.M.Krishan where in the Honourable National Commission held that the surveyor report is an important document and it is to be relied upon unless it is arbitrary and biased.  In the present case the opposite parties denied the appointment of surveyor.  The leaned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 contended that the complainant neither submitted any claim to opposite parties nor they repudiated or pending the claim, and the opposite parties had not appointed any surveyor to inspect the premises. The surveyor report filed by the complainant is marked as Ex.A6.  The complainant has not placed satisfactory evidence to prove that he has submitted a claim to opposite parties and a surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties.  It is for the complainant to show that he made a claim and the opposite parties appointed surveyor.  Ex.A6 was not issued by opposite parties.  The complainant did not file at least the affidavit of surveyor said to have been appointed by opposite parties.  So in the absence of any authorization letter by opposite parties to the said surveyor to inspect the premises it is not considered to be a genuine report.  The surveyor report is not taken into consideration. Taking into consideration all the material facts and circumstances on record we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.   

9.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13^th day of February, 2012.

 Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

      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 Policy bearing

                No.051102/11/07/11/00000211.

Ex.A2.       Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22-04-2011.

Ex.A3                Postal Acknowledgement of opposite party No.1.

Ex.A4                Postal Acknowledgement of opposite party No.2.

Ex.A5                Letter dated 09-11-2011 by complainant Counsel to

                Surveyor by name Sri M.R.Srinivasan.

Ex.A6                Survey Report of Sri M.R.Srinivasan, Insurance Surveyor

                dated 30-01-2008.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy bearing

                No.051102/11/07/11/00000211.

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               :