State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.Palani S/O Theepanjan No.360/4, ... vs United India Insurance Company Ltd., ... on 16 July, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH I) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member. F.A.No. 447/2011 [Against order in C.C.No.80/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chengalpattu] MONDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2012. T.Palani S/o Theepanjan No.360/4, Mahalakshmi Nagar Thimmavaram Chengalpattu Taluk ..Appellant/complaint Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chengalpattu, rep by its Branch Manager 7-A, Varadhanar street Vedhachala Nagar Chengalpattu 603 001 ..Respondent/opposite party The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.6.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellant/ complaint : Mr. K.Hariharan, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/ opposite party : M/s S.K. Krishnamurthy, Advocate. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant insured his residential building with compound wall as insurance coverage for Rs. 7 lakh with the opposite party and during the force of policy on 3.5.2004, the compound wall of complainants house fell down due to heavy rain and wind and also due to fast current of flood water and the complainant had to spent Rs. 39,715/- for the construction of the compound wall towards reconstruction of the same. Hence he claimed the same from the opposite party which was repudiated on the ground that the compound wall was not covered under the terms of policy. Hence the complainant came forward to file consumer complaint claiming a payment of Rs. 39,715/ - being the damage of compound wall with 12% of interest and Rs. 20,000/- for damages and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
3. The District Forum after considering the rival contentions and passed an order by dismissing the complaint . Being Aggrieved by the order , the complaint has preferred this appeal. We heard both side The appellant/complainant contended that he was having insurance policy with the opposite party from the year 1999 continuously till 2004 and at the beginning of the policy, there was no compound wall in existence and subsequently the policy was enhanced to Rs. 7 lakh by incorporating the value of Rs. 70,000/- towards the compound wall and thereby the insurance covered the risk of the compound wall. The complainant also produced the concerned policies as Ex.A.1 to A.4 and under the document Ex. A.4.
the policy covers apart from the building and other contents as per the list enclosed for total value of Rs. 7 lakh by mentioning Rs. 6 lakhs towards building and Rs. 1 lakh towards contents separately clearly pointing to the covering of the definition of the building with the compound wall as per policy and Ex.A.3 to A.4 . As far as the claim is concerned the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party under Ex.A.8. He had stated in para 4 at page 2. that he was given 1/3rd discount in the payment of premium and accordingly for the compound wall for the value of Rs. 7 lakh . He had paid Rs. 45/- towards the premium.
The opposite party contended that the complainant himself being the Development officer of the opposite party could have brought to the notice if any defect in the policy to amend the same and in this case if the premium is paid specifically for the compound wall coverage for his house when separate columns were provided in the proposal for building, compound wall and plinth and foundation etc and value for each items for the purpose of collecting the premium amount for compound would have been entered separately and no premium amount was collected for the said compound wall from the complainant as per the said insurance policy and pointed under Ex.B.1 in the proposal which is given by the complainant at the time of opening the earlier policy in the year 1999 for Rs. 5,00,000/- towards construction for building and Rs. 1,30,000 for other fixture and fittings and they are for total amount at Rs.6,30,000/-. The opposite party came forward to file the subsequent insurance policy in Ex.B.2 to B.4 and the complainant stated that the value of policy for including compound wall was enhanced. The compound wall was inspected by expert and the concerned technical staff of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to prove that no such proposal given for including compound wall. The compound wall estimated for Rs. 70,000/- and admitted that the staff had inspected and blaming the complainant for furnishing under value of Rs. 6,00,000/- instead of Rs. 6,30,000/- while giving reply notice under Ex.A.9. instead of taking steps to rectify the defects. Further the learned counsel for the appellant contended and relied upon various rulings to show that the compound wall of the building will form part of it to make building safety for which insurance will cover and relied upon in this regard
1. AIR1995 Bombay 164 and 2005 (3) CPR 192 in which pointed out of compound wall meant for safety and protection of inmates forms integrated part of the building and cannot be segregated from main building. It is further also relied upon in this regard
2. 2002(2) CPR (NC) in which relating fire policy insurance company repudiated claim and declined for compound wall covered within the head :Building - proposal form not produced by respondent company photographs of factory showed that the boundary wall was the only protection of machinery in factory Though Tariff schedule had a separate reference to boundary wall but in Fire Acceptance Advice did not contain break-up of premium It was a deficiency in service to repudiate claim order of District Forum was liable to be restored claim and further it was pointed out under Bombay building rules under the definition for building It is stated even an enclosure made of wood, metal etc., which form a compound wall or fencing would still come within definition of the term building the opposite party failed to produce the necessary proposals for two separate policies that to prove that the complainant not included the compound wall as a specific item for coverage, and only for the contents that extra premium for Rs. 70,000/- was paid not for compound wall and Rs.1 lakh included as at the value of contents as alleged by the complainant. The complainant stated that a sum of Rs.45 was charged as premium for the compound wall in the legal notice under Ex.A.8 and pointed out that he had mentioned the compound wall in the proposal form and concerned policy is only for the purpose of same and in the notice in para 4 stated My client being a staff, he was given 1/3rd discount in the payment of premium and accordingly for the compoundwall valued at Rs.70,000/- he paid Rs.45 towards premium which was not disputed by the opposite party and thereby we are of the view that the complainant entitled to be paid the amount for damages for damaged compound wall due to rain and floods. The surveyor of the opposite party has also reported after an inspection in his report under Ex.B.6 that the damaged compound value for Rs. 20,035/- against the policy amount of Rs. 6,30,000/-, the policy No. 011302/11/03/00213.
Even though he had stated that the compound wall damages did not cover in the policy for which the opposite party addressed Regional Officer for clarification and advice regarding the claim under Ex.B7 as they are not sure about nature of policy claim itself for which under Ex.B.8. The reply was given by stating that they are having the power and financial limits within their jurisdiction and to pass orders on merits. In these circumstances we filed that the district forum without going through the entire contentions of the complaint and the details of policy by simply accepting the opposite partys contentions for repudiation as a valid one and dismissed the complaint which is to be set aside and appeal to be allowed for the foregoing reasons and discussing made as above.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting a side the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu in C.C. No. 80/2005 dated 3.9.2010. The complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,035/- as recommended by the surveyor under Ex.B.6 with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of claim that is on from 23.11.04 to till date of payment and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant through out the proceedings. The direction shall be complied within six weeks from the date of order.
S. SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER