State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Prince T. Mathew, on 30 November, 2009
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 772/2003
(Arisen out of order dated 10/07/2003 in Case No. 295/2001 of District Idukki)
M/s.United India Insurance Co Ltd,Divisional Manager,Divisional Office,Kulangara House,Muvattupuzha
Vs.
Prince.T.Mathew
BEFORE :
PRESENT:
None for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
Dated the 30 November 2009 ORDER Allowed in part.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 772/2003JUDGMENT DATED: 30-11-2009 PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., : APPELLANT By its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kulangara House, P.O. Kecherithazham, Muvattupuzha, Represented in this Appeal by the Deputy Manager, M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Ernakulam. (Rep. by Adv. Smt. P.A. Reziya) Vs Prince T. Mathew, : RESPONDENT Thalianchira House, Parassinikkadavu, Puthupariyaram, Thodupuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. G. Anilkumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party/United India Insurance Company Ltd. in OP No. 295/2001 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the claim amount and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
2. It is the case of the complainant that his house which was covered against perils with the policy of the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- sustained extensive damages in the tremour of an earthquake that took place on 12-12-2000 and on 16-12-2000. A claim of Rs. 1,53,092/- was submitted for repairing the building based on the assessment of a competent engineer. But the appellant allowed only a sum of Rs. 14,550/-.
3. The opposite party/appellant has admitted the occurrence of the damage to the building and the insurance cover. The Surveyor deputed by the insurer assessed the damages as Rs. 24014.50 as a total cost of the construction of the building. At the time of construction the costs of construction would come to Rs. 13,17,500/- and as the building was insured only of Rs. 8 lakhs, there is under insurance to the tune of Rs. 5,17,500/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay only the proportionate loss ie, Rs. 14581.85. The complainant did not accept the same.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DW1, Ext.P1 and P2.
5. PW2 is a retired Chief Engineer (Civil) from the KSEB who has prepared Ext.P1 report. As per the above report the total cost of repairs would work out to Rs. 1,53,092/-. PW2 prepared the report before the institution of the proceedings before the Forum. Ext.R1 is the report of the Surveyor (DW1) deputed by the Insurance Company who inspected the premises after the alleged incident. He inspected the premises on 30-12-2000, that is about a fortnight after the alleged earthquake. The report of PW2 the expert commissioned by the complainant is dated 01-03-2001. The Surveyor has mentioned that plastering of the building was found to be cracked up to an area of 200 M2. It is also noted that the central portion of one RCC beam is also broken and the same has to be supported by installing a steel beam. The ceramic tiles of the walls of first floor and the ground floor toilets are seen cracked. The concealed wiring in the damaged portions has to be dismantled and plastering done etc. He has assessed the costs for dismantling for the 200 M2 area at Rs. 1,600/-. He has assessed the costs as Rs. 4,500/- for re-plastering of the walls after fixing and lacing copper winding wires for the area extending 50M2. For plastering of 150 M2 area the cost is mentioned as Rs. 8,250/-. For dismantling the damaged ceramic tiles and paving fresh ceramic tiles the cost is mentioned as Rs. 770/-. Towards the cost of the beam to be installed the amount mentioned is Rs. 4294.5. The costs for electrical work is mentioned as Rs. 600/- and the costs for applying white cement and snowcem paint is mentioned as Rs. 4,000/-; altogether Rs. 24014.50/.
6. In Ext. P1, PW2 the expert has mentioned the area that required re-plastering as 460 M2. The demolishing costs of the damaged plastering is mentioned as at the rate of Rs. 50/ M2 ie Rs. 2300/-. Plastering over gauge welded wire fabric is mentioned as at the rate of Rs. 182/ M2 for 460 M2 which is mentioned as Rs. 83,720/-. He has also noted that for fixing tiles over the sloping concrete roof extending 145 M2 would work out at Rs. 145/ M2 ie, Rs. 21,025/-. For re-fixing the ceramic wall tiles over welded wire fabric and chicken mesh for an area of 21 M2 is mentioned at the rate of Rs. 385/ M2 ie, Rs. 8,085/-. For fixing fresh fabricated beam the cost is mentioned as Rs. 16,576/-. The cost of electrical work is mentioned as Rs. 8,936/-. The cost of painting is mentioned as Rs. 12,450/-; altogether Rs. 1,53,092/-. As the expert who submitted Ext.P1 inspected the premises prior to the institution of the proceedings he was examined as PW2 and was cross examined.
7. The report of the Assistant Engineer of PWD who was appointed by the Forum as Commissioner is not seen marked. The above Commissioner has also mentioned in the report as the area where re-plastering is required as 460 M2 as in Ext.P1. The Commissioner has also mentioned the areas where the damages were found extended almost the same as in Ext.P1 report. But the cost has been worked out at a rate lesser than in Ext.P1. The complainant has filed an objection to the above report mentioning that the court Commissioner just spent about only 15 minutes at the spot and collected the copy of Ext.P1 report and the report of the Surveyor and just mentioned the extent of damages as in the above reports. We find that Ext.P1 report is a detailed one wherein the cost of each item of materials that has to be used ie, the market rate has been mentioned in detail. The above report also contains the measurements of the damaged portions in detail and the work to be done and also copy of an invoice from an electrical shop. The report of the Commissioner ie, Assistant Engineer PWD is not at all a detailed one. It was in the above circumstances, that the Forum has found that only in Ext.P1 the report of the expert commissioned by the complainant contained the details and the Forum relied on Ext.P1. We find that the approach of the Forum in this regard is the correct one. It has not been brought out that Ext.P1 contained any incorrect data. Hence we find that no interference in this regard is called for.
8. So far as the under valuation alleged is concerned, we find that the assessment by the Surveyor that the cost of construction of the building would work out to Rs. 13,17,500/- is not supported by any data. We find that the deduction for under insurance is not called for. Hence we find that the order of the Forum directing to pay the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards repairs of the building is only to be upheld. All the same, we find that the interest ordered to be paid appears excessive. Hence it is ordered that the complainant would be entitled for interest at 7.5% from the date of complaint. The order to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- is sustained.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at Rs. 7.5% from the date of complaint and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
The appeal is allowed in part as above.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
Sr.