State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Misses Shubhan Industries, vs 1.Misses United India Insurance Co. ... on 18 November, 2021
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISsION:HYDERABAD
C.C.49/2014
Between
M/s.Shubham Industries,
Apartnership firm, having its office &
Factory at Sy.No.201, Elikatta (V),
Pargi Road, Shadnagar,
Mahabubnagar District.
Rep. by its authorised signatory
Sri Jagadish Prasad Sharma.
..Complainant
And
1.M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, 1-5-107/4/A,
First Floor, Beside Ing Vysya Bank,
Main Road, New Town,
Mahabubnagar,
Rep. by its Director.
2. M.S.Prasad,
Office of M/s.Loss Assessment &
Flat No.302, Bangari Block,
Investigation Services,
Conjeevaram House,
Behind ICIC Direct, Padmarao Nagar,
Secunderabad - 500 025.
3. M/s.Selex Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt.Ltd.,
A-108, Matrusri Apartments,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 029,
Rep. by its Director Mr.Anoor Naveen.
Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Complainant M/s.Manne Hari Babu
Counsel for the opposite parties M/s.E.Venugopal Reddy -0.P.no.1
Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam-O.P.No.2
CORAM: Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE.
Order:
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17(1)a)i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite part no.11:
i) To pay an amount of Rs.93,69,088/- along with future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint 2
ii) To pay Rs.5,00,000 /- towards compensation/damages for the dereliction of duty , negligence and deficiency in providing the service;
ii) To award costs of Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses incurred
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant is a partnership firm and is in the business of manufacturing of Polyester Film/BOPP Film and has been availing the services of the 1st opposite party since 2003. insured vide They are policy no.051103/11/11/11/00001528 for the period from 21.01.2012 to 20.1.2013. It is submitted that on 23.3.2012 at about 12.30 p.m. a fire mishap occurred which unfortunately lead to the destruction of the shed and lot of stocks. FIR.No.124/2012 was immediately filed with Shadnagar P.S. on 24.3.2012 and after due investigation it was confirmed that the fire accident at the complainant's premises was due to electric short circuit. This was further confirmed by Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation) Shadnagar employed with Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company.
The complainant reported about the said fire accident to opposite party no.1 who immediately sent opposite party no.2 a Surveyor to assess the loss and damage. The preliminary assessment was well over Rs.50 lakhs and since this beyond his was surveying jurisdictional capacity, he withdrew from the detailed survey. Soon after, opposite party no.1 requested the services of opposite partyno.3 who visited the accident premises and placed an estimate of insurable loss and damage at Rs.65,91,678/-
Since then the complainant has been diligently following up with opposite parties 1 & 3 about the claim and payment. Innumerable letters have been provided as documentation for disbursal of the claim. To his shock and surprise the complainant received a Discharge Voucher dt.2.12.2013 from opposite party no.1 baldly informing the complainant without any supporting annexures or documentation that the competent authority had approved the claim for full and final settlement for Rs.32,17,779/-.
The complainant submits that he has clearly submitted detailed assessment documents where the loss is quantified to be about Rs.93,69,088/- and he has been diligently following up with numerous letters about speedy settlement. The present complaint is filed against the opposite parties for their deficiency in having put the complainant to financial and material hardship and severe mental agony.
33. Opposite party no.1 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed their written version submitting that they had issued the policy to the complainant which was valid from 21.1.2012 to 20.1.2013. The policy contains agreed bank clause with M/s.Andhra Bank. But M/s.Andhra Bank is not made party to know the exact details of furnishing stock statement periodically. As per the documents filed by the complainant, the date of accident is 23.3.2012 and the complaint was lodged on 24.3.2012 at about 8 a.m. This is an after thought and the complainant has given exaggerated information with regard to the details of loss. Reference is made to the documents in page nos.18 & 19 (Document no.7) which does not bear any stamp of authority. They submit that the complainant assessed the loss by showing alleged purchases made by him on 21.3.2012 and 22.3.2012 which they doubt for the reason that 23.3.2012 was a holiday being Ugadi.
It is their contention that the surveyor had sought for certain documents from the complainant vide letter dt.17.6.2013, but the complainant failed to submit the same. The opposite party intimated the complainant through letter dt.19.8.2013 that the loss assessed by the surveyor appears to be on the higher side and therefore it will be arrived by a competent authority. On 2.12.2013 this opposite party offered an amount ofRs.32,17,779/- in full and final settlement of the claim and requested the complainant to execute the necessary discharge voucher and affidavit. The complainant did not return the same and approached this Commission without any basis. With these submissions they pray that the Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
4. Written version filed by the opposite party no.2 raises some very pertinent issues. It is submitted that this opposite party after due verification of the produced bills, information furnished to the bank every month, sales invoices and purchase invoices of the previous 35 months, observed that the average monthly purchases of the complainant company was to the tune of Rs.27,54,514/- and the monthly sales was around Rs.34,66,796/-. It can be concluded that the complainant's average monthly sales would be around Rs.35 lakhs. For maximum daily sales of Rs.2 lakhs a prudent business man would normally keep reasonable stock value of Rs.10 lakhs. So this opposite party and the auditors opine that the are inclined to complainant has not explained the necessity of keeping unreasonable stock appearing in the books though his regular average day sales was around Rs.1,00,000/-. The investigation of the opposite party reveal that the entire machinery hall is used for 4 purposes. The hall is divided though not separated by wall based on their purpose of utilization. Part-A the raw material is stored and no loss caused. Two days input of stocks was was shown under 3 bills and except the invoices the insured/complainant , was 4 unable to provide any documentary evidence of lorry trip confirming the physicalmovement of the stock.
Finally it is submitted that if comparison is made with the previous years balance sheet as on date of fire accident i.e. 23.3.2012, the value of stock in process and finished goods shall not exceed Rs.26,66,968/-. Basing on this report, the opposite party settled the claim of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the crucial aspect of maintenance of the dispute.
3. Evidence Affidavit;and Addl. Evidence Afidavit of Mr.Jagadish Prasad Sharma, Authorised person of complainant firm filed. Evidence Affidavit of Mr.A. Srinivas Aditya authorized employee of the opposite party no.l filed. Evidence Affidavit of opposite party no.2 filed. Written arguments of opposite party no. 1 filed.
6. The points that requires determination are:
i). Whether the opposite party no.1 has been deficient and negligent in not compensating the claim of the complainant?
ii). If yes, is the complainant entitled to reliefs sought for, to what relief?
7. Th complainant is a partnership firm in the business of manufacturing polyester film/BOPP Film. They are insured with opposite party no.1 vide policy no. 051103/11/11/11/00001528 for the period from 21.01.2012 to 20.1.2013. On 23.3.2012 at about 12.30 p.m., on Ugadi day a fire mishap occurred due to electrical short circuit and the complainant had to endure heavy loss.
The compiainant sought a claim of Rs.93,69,088/- but the Surveyor (opp.party no.2) sent by opposite party no.1 on the date of accident estimated the damage to be over 50 lakhs and since it was beyond his jurisdictional capacity withdrew from the detailed survey submission.
Another survey was conducted by opposite party no.3 and his estimate of insurable loss & damage was placed at Rs.65,91,678/-. To the shock, the complainant received a Discharge Voucher dt.2.12.2013 from opposite party no.1 baldly informing them that without any supporting annexures or documents, the claim is approved for Rs.32,17,779/-.
The main issues raised by the opposite party no.1 insurance company are
i). Opposite party no.2 surveyor observed that the insured/complainant had allegedly purchased stock on 21.3.2012 and 22.3.2012 for a quantity of 16,950 kgs. of P.P.Granules and within two days 14,100 kgs were issued for processing or the heavy 5 issues of previous two days stock which is allegedly purchased from local dealers one day before the fire and taken delivery on the same day, issuing such stock for processing which was claimed as stock in process indicates that claim was not preferred with clean hands.
ii). reference is made to Doc.no.7 Pg.Nos. 18 & 19, which does not bear any stamp or authority and that the complainant had estimated the loss according to his convenience at the time of the mishap on 23.3.2012.
ii).The surveyor had sought for certain documents:
.Copy of Purchase Register for the month of March,2012.
Copy of the Abstract/Statement of Sales Tax/Excise Duty on purchase and sale for the month of March,2012.
Form ER-1 Return of Central Excise for the month of March,2012.
Statement of Excise Duty Reversal for the affected stock claimed in the month of March,2012. Copy of the day book for the month of March,2012- Purchase entries.
Copy of VAT returns.
Ledger copy for the month of March 2012-Creditors. Final Investigation Report. Copy of Statement of Inventory of Raw Material/ Work in process /Semi-finished and finished for the month of March,2012.
goods Copy of Statement of closing of stock for the past period.
But the complainant filed the present complaint without any basis. The opposite party no.1 intimated through letter dated 19.8.2013 that the loss assessed by the surveyor appears to be on the higher side and that the loss amount will be considered subject to approval by competent authority.
8. We have carefully perused the documentary evidence on record of the case and the following points emerge for consideration.
The undisputed facts of the case are . O n 23.3.2012 at about 12.30 p.m. due to short circuit, fire accident occurred in the complainant's factory M/s.Shubham Industries.
.On perusal of Ex.A14 reveals that the surveyors (Opposite party no.3) -Selex Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors found that the documents submitted do not conclusively substantiate the claim preferred by the complainant on S. insurers and they asked for further clarifications, by way of "9.Detailed Estimate loss with supporting documents.
mlune sheet for the tinaneial yeur 201| 2912 (Eding
on Data of lns)
1Mank itank tilatenents n th past mwths i,
Thw xlMt la datd 24.1.012. To
thls lotr, ther cannplalnsut hus ropled vide xA1h statlg Ihat all ths epired donumnts are iuhnitted As deslred y ppsile uarly no hut thssn very eeial douments relating » the letalled stimut of lows with supsrs4ipting doeuments, sulited finanejsl statenenl for the pssl 3 years nd ank uucks for the psst si munths 1.
from Heplember,2011 t h e date of loss are nt subnittd in this
Commission The datss of
purchase stonk tn periaining
21.4,2012
and
22.3.2012 hus ruisrd suspicion and thr: opposite parties aro cking further
a
clarificaton on the said purchA$6, We have perused the recrds subnitird by he complainant and there is n documentary evidene that wstlsfies us thst hese purcuses were made and issud for procsssing as the Wuy Bills r e not filed to support his. We refer tn the investigatiom report filed by oppositr parly no.% vlde Ex.A:) dt28.3.2013 The following observstions sre reproduced from the report to further understand the dispute ."or a muximun ssle of Rs.2,00,0%0/- per dsy any prudent business nan shall keep a reasonable stnk of value five times the requirement of everyday which omes to Rs.10,00,000/-.
A s the unit is continuously functioning (evidenced by the electricity bills) since several years and the purchase and sles for previous 3 years did not shoot up for high values Ccept averuge of Rs.35,00,000/ per month, there in no point or logic uppeared to stock a value of finished of Rs,68,13,452/ goods .The two day» input of ntocks Wan shown under 3 bills and Cacept the invoices the insurcd was unablc to provide any documentary evidence of lorry trip shect cte; confirming the physical transhipment from the eller factory to insured premises. May be he purchascd the stock which is accennib: sor him even to take the delivery after firo acciden n 23.03.2012".
The report concluded that the insured is unable to answer as to why within two days time huge stock is issued for processing which allegedly got damaged in the mishap.
The report further stated that it appears reasonable to believe that as on date of loss/accident i.e. 23.3.2012, the value of stock in process and the finished goods shall not exceed the previous year closing balance of Rs.26,66,968/-
9 The 2nd Survey report is filed vide Ex.A20 14.9.2012 loss on account of stocks is assessed at Rs.58,71,510/- and on account of Plant & Machinery is assessed at Rs. 6,12,388/- and Bldg. at Rs.86,780/-. Total amount is Rs.65,70,678/-
But this has been based on 31.3.2012 audited balance sheet as per Pg49-Ex.A20. The fire accident and ensuing damage occurred on 23.3.2012
-purchases made after 23rd March should not have been considered but this survey report has taken this into account. In March three invoices relating to purchases do not have the connected Way Bill. A close scrutiny of Ex.A25 PG.62 reveals the date of invoice is 28.3.2012 for Tax Invoice Nos.3001978577 Rs.8,27,470/, 3001978578- 28.3.2012 - Rs.2,28,54 1/- . These two invoices were raised after the fire accident and should not be considered. However, the 2nd survey report failed to consider this aspect. Now we refer to Ex.A25 page 62 corresponding to Ex.B1. Out of the 8 invoices submitted totalling to Rs.45,88,411/ only two are eligible as they are dated prior to the accident & having connected Way Bills.
Emphasis is supplied on Invoice no.3001976992 dt. 16.3.2012 of Reliance Industries Ltd. for Rs.8,12,299/- ; and 3001976642 dt.14.3.2012 of Reliance Industries Ltd. for Rs.8,12,299/-. Out of the six invoices - two are post fire accident. The remaining invoices were submitted without Way Bills. Further two are dated just a day & two prior to the accident. This doubt has been raised by opposite party no.2 surveyor and the Insurance Company has later asked for clarification, which was not duly submitted. These 6 invoices total to Rs.29.62 lakhs. The second report submitted by opposite party no.3 has not been properly conducted.
10. The complainant company has relied on two judgements
i)F.A.No.324/2006 and C.A.No.4487/2004. wherein it was discussed that the insurance company cannot discard reports of various surveyors till getting a favourable report and therefore allowed the complaint.
The case on hand is different and the circumstances for appointment of the 2nd surveyor happened because the first surveyor withdrew as it was first However, the grounds urged by the capacity.
beyond his jurisdictional considered in and have been equally 1 report are not totally disregarded survey being appointed is well The reason for the second surveyor our order.
service.
not amount to deficiency in
explained and does
cited in
to the judgement
We further support our reasoning and refer
11. main argument
-April 2005 The company's
Uniply vs. New India Assurance
surveyor and
the findings of independent
was that it had based the claim on
deficiency in service.
hence there was
in
the role that a surveyor plays
Commission reiterated
The National
processing claims.
of the contract
is not in line with the
terms
assessment
The surveyor's
to be set aside
.The National
material facts are not considered, it is likely or all dt.10.12.2020 in the order Commission's verdict reinforces this dictum Co.Ltd.
vs. New India Assurance
Wilson Home Appliances
bound to
an Insurance Company is duty
The Bench observed that
Insurance
accordance with the provisions of the
appoint its surveyor in
A
specifically refers )
-
and loss assessors
Act,1938-Sec.64 UM Surveyors
reasons, further
the Commission
be disregarded without cogent
survey cannot
also observed that the onus
the insurance
the surveyor appointed by
a) of showing that the report of
flawed and
company was
Rs.17 lakhs was on the
b) of showing that actually iníact the loss was
complainant firm which onus it failed to discharge.
Insurance unsubstantiated and although the
12. The complainant's claim is sum of Rs.32, 17,779/-, the complainant industry has Company offered a The principal for enhancement in compensation. preferred the complaint insurance evidence is the two survey reports.
Investigation and survey by an amount payable to the insured.
fundamental in determining the company are cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons.
A Survey Report that the rationale and computation However, it also goes concomitantly be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny. recorded in the Survey should submitted scrutinized the Invoices raised or Way Bills The 2nd report has not which is six the audited report as on 31.3.2012 but based the findings on accident. Therefore, the invoices raised and production days after the fire considered to evaluate the loss. The onus of after the accident should not be and they have failed to showing the actual loss is on the complainant industry the onus. No reason is visible to allow the claim of the complainant discharge Industry and the claim is dismissed.
9In the the complaint is dismissed.
13. result, PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER ******** Dated: 18.11.2021 APPENDLx OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the opposite parties For the complainant Evidence Aff. of Mr.A.Srinivas Aditya- Evidence Aff. and Addl. Evidence Aff. authorized employee of the opp. party of Mr.Jagadish Prasad Sharma, Authorised person of complainant no.1 filed.
Evidence Aff. of opp.party no.2 filed. firm filed.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Perils Policy issued by Ex.A1 Photostat copy of Standard Fire and Special the no.1 in the name of valid from complainant Opposite party 21.1.2012 to 20.1.2013.
Certificate Ex.A2 Photostat copy of Value Added Tax Registration firm by Dt.30.3.2005 issued in the name of the complainant Commercial Taxes Dept. -Govt. of A.P. of Firm .A3 Photostat copy of Acknowledgement of Registration Dt. 10.7.2003, issued by Registrar of Firms, Mahabubnagar in the name of the complainant firm. Photostat copy of Amendment Deed of Partnership dt. 30.6.2008 Ex.A4 of the complainant Firm.
Ex.A5 Photostat copy of First Information Report No.124/2012, dt.24.3.2012.
Ex.A6 Photostat copy of Final Report submitted by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Shadnagar, M'nagar. Ex.A7 Photostat copy of Panchanama dt.23.3.2012.
Photostat copy of lr.dt.23.3.2012 from the complainant to Ex.A8 the Manager/ Asst. Div.Engineer, APCPDCL, Shadnagar Town.
Ex.A9 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.23.3.2012 from the complainant to the District Fire Officer, Mahaboobnagar.
from the complainant to Ex.A10 Photostat copy of lr.dt.24.3.2012 the Inspector of Police, Station House Office Police Station, Ex.A11 Shadnagar.
Photostat copy of Form No.18-A submitted by the complainant. Ex.A12 Photostat copy of lr.dt.23.3.2012 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
from the opp.party no.3 to Ex.A13 Photostat copy of Lr.dt.24.3.2012 the complainant.
Ex.A14 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.24.3.2012 from opposite party no.3 to the complainant.
Ex.A15- Photostat copy of Ir.dt.24.3.2012 from Asst.Divl. Engineer, Operation -APCPDCL , Shadnagar to the complainant. Ex.A16 Photostat copy of lIr.dt.30.4.2012 from the complainant to Opposite party no.3.
Ex.A17 Photostat copy of the statement dt.25.3.2012 of Momula Basappa submitted to New India Insurance Co., M'nagar. Ex.A18 Photostat copy of estimation submitted by the complainant with regard to details of loss suffered by themn. Ex.A19 Photostat copy of lr.dt.31.3.2012 from the complainant to 10 theSuperintendent of Ccntral Excisc Kothur -II Runge, Hyd.
, Ex.A20 Photostat copy of Survey & Loss Asscssment Report Dt.14.9.2012 issucd by opposite party no.3 Ex.A21 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.9.7.2012 from the Opposite party no.3. complainant to Ex.A22- Photostat copy of Ir.dt.10.8.2012 from the the Superintendent of Central Excisc complainant to Kothur-I Range, Hyd.
, Ex.A23 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.12.10.2012 from the complainunt to opposite party no.1.
Ex.A24 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.18.10.2012 from the complainant.
opp.party no.I to Ex.A25 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.10.1.2013 from Kadcl Insurancc
Brokers Pvt.Ltd. to opp. party no.2.
Ex.A26 Photostat copy of
Ir.dt.29.1.2013 from the
opposite party no.1.
complainant to
Ex.A27 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.29.1.2013 from
opposite party no.1.
thc complainant to
Ex.A28 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.22.2.2013 from the
opposite party no.1.
complainant to
Ex.A29Photostat copy of Ir.dt. 13.3.2013 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
Ex.A30- Photostat copy of Investigation Report dt.28.3.2013 issued by opposite party no.2.
Ex.A31 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.3.7.2013 from No.1.
complainant to opp.party Ex.A32 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.12.6.2013 from the complainant to Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Shadnagar, M'nagar. Ex.A33 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.12.6.2013 from No.1.
complainant to opp.party Ex.A34 Photostat copy of Ir.dt. 15.4.2013 from No.1.
complainant to opp.party Ex.A35 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.17.6.2013 from opposite party no.3 to the complainant.
Ex.A36- Photostat copy of Ir.dt. 19.8.2013 from opp.party no.l to the complainant.
Ex.A37 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.22.8.2013 from complainant to No.1.
opp.party Ex.A38 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.22.8.2013 from complainant to opp.party No.1.
Ex.A39- Photostat copy of Ir.dt.26.8.2013 from the complainant to the Public Information Officer and Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Shadnagar Branch, Mahaboobnagar. Ex.A40 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.25.10.2013 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
Ex.A41 Photostat copy of Ir.dt. 11.11.2013 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
Ex.A42- Photostat copy of Ir.dt.2.12.2013 from opp.party no.1 to the Complainant.
Ex.A43 Photostat copy of Ir.dt. 12.12.2013 from the complainant to opp.party no.l.
Ex.A44 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.dt.20.12.2013 from opp.party no.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A45 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.27.12.2013 from the complainant to opp.party no.1.
Ex.A46 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.27.12.2013 from the complainant to opp.party no.1.
Ex.A47 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.7.1.2014 from opp.party no.1 to to the complainant.
Ex.A48 Photostat copy of lIr.dt.22.1.2014 from opp.party no.1 to to the complainant.
Ex.A49 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.8.1.2014 from the complainant to 11 Opposite party no. 1.
Ex.A50 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.21.1.2014 from the complainant to Opposite party no. 1.
Ex.A51 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.21.1.2014 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
to Ex.A52 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.28.1.2014 from the complainant Opposite party no.3.
Ex.A53 Photostat copy of Lr.dt.3.7.2013 from the complainant to Opposite party no.1.
Ex.A54 Photostat copy of Ir. o.1097/msme/52 from Andhra Bank
to the opposite Party no.1.
Ex.A55 Photostat copy of certificate issued by Andhra Bank with
regard to the interest paid by the complainant Firm. Ex.A56 - Photostat copy of Authorization Ir.dt.13.2.2014 issued by complainant.
Ex.A57 Statement showing manufacturing cost and selling cost of the goods pertaining to the complainant Firm.
Ex.A58 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.29.7.2013 from the authorised signatory of complainant to opposite party no.1. Ex.A59 Photostat copy of G.O.Ms.no.740 dt.1.10.2007.
issued by Central Ex.A60 Copy of order dt.14.11.2014 Information Commission in Appeal No.CIC/MP/A 2014/000377.
Ex.A61 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.20.1.2015 from opp.party no.l to the authorized signatory of the complainant. Ex.A62- Photostat copy of lr.dt.29.10.2012 from opp.party no.l to opp.party no.2.
Ex.A63 Copy of Ir.dt. 24.4.2013 from Branch Office, Mahabubnagar-opp No.1 to the Div.0ffice, Kurnool,United India Ins.Co. Ex.A64 Photostat copy of Common Claim Note dt.18.4.20016 issued by opp.party no.l.
Ex.A65 E-Mail correspondence dt.13.11.2013 Ex.A66 Photostat copy of Letter of Sanction(Loan) issued by Andhra Bank.
Ex.A67 Photostat copy of statement of account of complainant firm issued by Andhra Bank.
Ex.A68 Photostat copy of Account Resume of the complainant firm for the period from 1.3.2012 to 30.6.2019 issued by Andhra Bank.
Ex.A69 Photostat copy of Interest OcC 37 - Andhra Bank Ledger Account of complainant from April 2012 to June, 2019 Ex.A70 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.27.6.2013 from the opp.party no.3 to Opp.party no.1.
Exhibits marked onbehalf of the opposite party no.1:
Ex.R Investigation Report dt.28.3.2013 issued by opp.party no.2. Ex.B2 Photostat copy of Ir.dt.2.12.2013 from the opp.party no. 1 to complainant.
Ex.B3 Photostat copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by opp.party no.1 in the name of the complainant.
Ex.B4 Photostat copy of lIr.dt.14.9.2012 from the opposite party no.3
Opposite party no. 1
PRESIDENT LADÝ MEMBER
Dated:18.11.2021