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
Thursday the 24th day of November, 2011
C.C.No.69/11
BETWEEN:
G.Nagaraju,S/o G.Nagalakshmaiah,
H.No.64/24, Court Road, Kurnool-518 001.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. United India Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office II, Ramalaya, IInd Floor,1-7-241/10, S.D. Road, Secunderabd-500 003.
2. The Branch Manager,Union Bank of India,
H.No.40/384, U-con Plaza, Kurnool-518001.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 69/11
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of damage of house i.e., 02-10-2009 till the date of realization;
(b) To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony;
(c) To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of house bearing No.64/24, Court Road, Kurnool. The complainant availed loan from opposite party No.2 bank for construction of said house on behalf of the complainant opposite party No.2 bank insured the house of the complainant with opposite party No.1 for Rs.4,46,000/-. The opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.050100/46/03/00269 in favour of the insured. The policy is in force from 30-09-2003 to 29-09-2013. On 02-10-2009 the complainant house was submerged in flood water and damaged. The complainant got estimated the damage through a qualified engineer. The engineers estimated the damage of Rs.1,40,000/-. Opposite party No.1 issued settlement voucher for Rs.14,980/- only instead of 1,40,000/-. The complainant refused to the said amount. Opposite party No.1 addressed a letter dated 04-05-2010 to the complainant stating that the building is under insured to the extent of 81-12% and that the complainant is entitled to Rs.14,980/- only. The surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 is not qualified surveyor. The complainant entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The house of the complainant bearing No.64/24 Court Road, Kurnool was insured for Rs.4,46,000/-. There were floods on 02-10-2009 and the house of the complainant was submerged in the flood water. The complainant submitted a report given by engineer estimating the loss at Rs.1,40,000/-. The independent valuer and assessor estimated the loss occurred due to flood water at Rs.90,170/-. He assessed the cost of building at Rs.23,62,500/- and observed that the building is under insured to an extent of 81.12%. The depreciation value of the building and under insured value of the building are deducted from the actual loss. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 offered the amount for which the complainant is entitled. The complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complainant availed loan of Rs.4,46,000/-. The house of the complainant was submerged in the flood water on 02-10-2009. The bank is not concerned to settle the claim of the complainant. The bank is added as only proforma party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the house bearing No.64/24, Court Road, Kurnool, that the complainant availed loan of Rs.4,46,000/- from opposite party No.2 bank and that opposite party No.2 bank insured the house of the complainant with opposite party No.1 on behalf of the complainant for Rs.4,46,000/-. Ex.A1 is the policy issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant. The said policy is in force from 30-09-2003 to 29-09-2013. Admittedly while the policy was in force the house of the complainant was submerged in the flood water and damaged on 02-10-2009. After the incident the complainant got estimated the damage through a civil engineer and submitted the claim to opposite party No.1.
8. The complainant filed the present complaint claiming an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as estimated by Aiswarya Associates, Kurnool. Ex.A4 is the estimate of damage prepared by Aiswarya Associates, Kurnool. They assessed total loss at Rs.1,40,000/-. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that independent valuer and assessor of loss was appointed to arrive the loss and that he assessed the net loss at Rs.14,981/-. Ex.B2 is the surveyors report. The surveyor estimated the gross loss at Rs.90,170/-. After deducting the depreciation value of the building of Rs.10,820/- and under insurance value of Rs.64,369/- he assessed net loss at Rs.14,981/-. As seen from Ex.A4 it is very clear that engineers who estimated the damage did not take into consideration the depreciation value of the building and under insurance value of the building. As per the terms and conditions of the policy in case of under insurance the insured as to bear ratable proportion of loss occurred. The independent surveyor assessed the cost of the building at Rs.23,62,500/-. The complainant has not chosen to produce documentary evidence to show that the cost of his building was only Rs.4,46,000/-.
9. Admittedly opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to submit the discharge vouchers for Rs.14,980/-. The complainant inspite of several reminders did not chose to submit the discharge voucher for Rs.14,980/-. The complainant refused to receive an amount of Rs.14,980/- as assessed by the independent surveyor. No negligence is found on the part of opposite party No.1. The report of the insurance surveyor must be given due to weight. The surveyor after considering the entire material rightly assessed net loss at Rs.14,980/-. The complainant is entitled to the said amount only. No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite party No.1. At this stage we think it is just and proper to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the said amount to the complainant.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.14,980/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. In the circumstance of the case both parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 24th of November, 2011.
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.050100/46/03/00269.
Ex.A2 Office copy of Letter addressed by the complainant to Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad dated 14-04-2010.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Letter addressed by the complainant to
Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited, Secunderabad dated 20-06-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Detailed cum Abstract Estimate of
Aiswarya Associates, Kurnool.
Ex.A5 Office copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 05-04-2010.
Ex.A6 Policy bearing No.050100/46/03/90/00000269 United
India Insurance Company Limited Chennai settlement
intimation voucher for Rs.14,980/-.
Ex.A7 Office copy of Letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 04-05-2010.
Ex.A8 Reply Letter dated 15-07-2010 sent to complainant by
opposite party No.1.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing
No.050100/46/03/90/00000269.
Ex.B2 Survey Report of E.Mukund dated 30-12-2009.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Proposal for special contingency policy
dated 02-08-2003.
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 :
