IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 72/09 DATED 07.05.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Puttarajamma, W/o Late Puttaswamappa, R/at Bheemanahally Village, Annur Post, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri.H.S.Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Branch Office, Hunsur, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri.Goutham Chand, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.02.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 01.04.2009<br /> Date of order : 07.05.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has come up with this complaint against the opposite party, in brief is, that she is a registered tobacco grower auctioned her product in platform No.1 of H.D.Kote. That she is having an account in Kalpatharu Cauvery Grameena Bank, Annur Branch with whom the opposite party has tie up to provide insurance to tobacco barrens. She has obtained fire and peril policy for single barren and premium was deducted from her bank account. Due to fire incident, her tobacco barren had completely destroyed on 13.09.2008, which was an accidental one. That she informed the same to her banker and also the opposite party. She had stocked 300 Kg. of tobacco leaves and the price of the tobacco per kg. during that period was Rs.94.90 and the loss was to the barren including the stock has been estimated as Rs.1,31,110/-. But, the opposite party has only sent Rs.27,000/- to her bank account without any reasons and thereby the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service in meeting her claim and thus has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.94,110/- with 9% interest.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has entered appearance through his advocate and filed version admitting the insurance coverage extended to the barren of the complainant including the stock. But called upon the complainant for putting to strict proof of the loss she alleged to had suffered in a sum of Rs.1,31,110/- and stated that an independent surveyor appointed by them estimated the loss as Rs.27,000/- accordingly they have sent a sum of Rs.27,000/- by crediting that amount to the account of the complainant and thereby denying their liability to pay the balance amount has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced photographs of the burnt barren, rough estimate of loss prepared by her, a letter of Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board indicating the price of tobacco prevailing during the auction season. The opposite party has produced copy of the documents for having sent a partial amount for crediting to the account of the complainant and report of their surveyor. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party has caused deficiency in his service in only awarding damages of Rs.27,000/- as against the actual loss of Rs.1,31,110/- and thereby caused deficiency in his service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Answered in the affirmative in part.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no.:- As evident from the contentions of both the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant had a valid fire and peril insurance on her tobacco barren, which was inclusive of tobacco leaves stocked for processing. The fact that the tobacco barren of the complainant caught accidental fire on 13.09.2008 is not disputed by the opposite party, the only dispute is with regard to the quantum of damages awarded by the opposite party. Therefore we shall have to resort to that limited point in order to determine the difference between the parties. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has estimated her loss at Rs.1,31,110/-, whereas the surveyor of the opposite party through his report has assessed total damage at Rs.37,362/- and after deducting policy excess of Rs.10,000/- has opined that a sum of Rs.27,362/- only is payable to the complainant. Thus, on this recommendation of the surveyor, the opposite party has paid that amount to the complainant. The difference in these claims could be sorted out by referring to the claim of the complainant and the assessment reached by the surveyor.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has produced a certificate of her banker, which contain the stock of tobacco leaves and damage to the barren, which is inclusive of the infrastructure provided with in for processing the stock. The complainant in her rough estimate besides claiming damages for the accessories fitted within the barren has claimed Rs.14,000/- towards furnace set and Rs.35,000/- for a crack in the wall of the barren under the head of bricks. The surveyor in his report has stated that furnace set is intact and the bricks are also intact and no damage to the bricks as noticed by him. These findings of the surveyor has not been disputed by the complainant. Therefore, the surveyor has disallowed these two amounts, which in our view is justified, because of the fact that the complainant has not controverted the finding of the surveyor with regard to the intactness of the furnace and the bricks. The complainant has also not placed before us any sort of evidence to prove damage to furnace and the wall of the barren or the bricks. Coming to the assessment of the complainant and the surveyor with regard to the other accessories, the complainant has claimed damages for bamboo stick quantifying them as 600 casual of poles and other wooden accessories. Whereas the surveyor in his report has scaled down these wooden accessories in their quantity to a very low number and also shown the approximate cost of those wooden accessories at a lower rate. The report of the banker of the complainant goes in support of the claim of the complainant with regard to the damage to the accessories. We should be bear in mind that in the barren of a particular size in order to process a particular quantity of tobacco leaves, minimum arrangement with wooden poles etc., are required to be done and that in our view found to be a standard scale required to maintain. It is not the surveyor’s report that the accessories inside the barren were partially burnt and the remaining part of the accessories could be made use of. As found from his report, he has not shown any salvage and also value of the salvage that being so all the wooden accessories around in the barren found to had been burnt in the fire as could be even noticed in the photographs. The surveyor as could be noticed from his report has not even assigned any reasons for scaling down the number of accessories as estimated by the complainant and in having estimated the cost of those accessories at a lower rate. Therefore, it is noticed that the surveyor without working out the material cost and applying scientific approach has approximately estimated damage of the barren and reached to an imaginary estimation of damages. Even, the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the quantity that are required to be fitted in a barren of particular size and their approximate value as on the date of incident comparing to the market. Therefore, the claim of the complainant also in our view found to be on higher side with regard to her estimation of the accessories. Therefore, taking into consideration, the rough estimation of the complainant and also surveyor of the opposite party by disallowing the cost of furnace and the bricks, we propose to fix damages to the burnt barren at Rs.50,000/-<br /> <br /> 9. Coming to the loss of tobacco stock is concerned, the claim of the complainant that she had stocked 300 Kgs. of orginia quality tobacco leaves is not controverted. Further, the price certificate issued by the tobacco board for the auction season at Rs.94.90 per kg has also not been disputed by the opposite party. Whereas the surveyor as could be seen from his report without any reasonings has taken tobacco stock as Rs.250/- kgs and fix the rate at Rs.45 per kg and awarded damages at Rs.11,250/- which in our view is arbitrary and unscientific. Therefore, if 300 kgs of tobacco stock is worked out at Rs.94.90 per kg which comes to Rs.28,470/-. For this if we award damages to the barren, which has been worked out at Rs.50,000/- + Rs.28,470/- which comes to Rs.78,470/- which is rounded off to Rs.78,000/-, which is payable by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party has already paid Rs.27,000/- to the complainant and the balance payable is Rs.51,000/-. With this, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.51,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th May 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />