State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Dr. Mobile, Rep. By Its Proprietor vs 1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... on 20 January, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
CC
10 of 2013
Between:
Mr. Dr. Mobile, Rep. by its
Proprietor
M. Naveen Kumar Goud S/o. M. Ramchander
Goud
Aged about 35 years 16-2-741/B/1,
Asmangadh,
Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. Complainant
A N D
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep., by
its Manager, A Block, Fifth Floor
Jewel Pavani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road
Somjiguda,
Hyderabad.
2. The State Bank of India
Gaddiannaram
Branch, H.No. 16-2-740/75/13
V. K. Dhage Nagar, Hyderabad.
Rep. by its Branch Manager. Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. M. Hari Babu
Counsel for the opposite parties M/s. N. Mohana
Krishna (OP1)
M/s.
Vamaraju Srikishnudu (OP2)
QUORUM SRI R.LAXINARASIMHA RAO,
HONBLE MEMBER
SRI THOTA. ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. This is a complaint filed u/s 17(1)(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to Opposite party no.1 to settle the claim of the complainant of `21,14,100/- with interest @ 18% p.a., and direct Opposite party no.2 to settle his loan account of `5 lakhs and direct the Ops to pay `5 lakhs towards compensation and `20,000/- towards costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is dealing in Mobile phones sales and services. He had availed loan from Opposite party no.2 bank and got his premises insured by obtaining Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy covering the contents at `7,77,600/- and Specifically Covered Property at `11,84,000/- in all `19,61,000/- for the period from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012. On 10.4.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. when the shop was closed fire broke out in the premises and the total contents in the premises were burnt into ashes. One Mr. Vaseem gave information about the fire accident to the Fire Department which controlled the same and opined that the fire was due to Electric Origin.
3. The complainant submits that the premises and the contents therein worth `21,14,100/- were destroyed in the fire accident. The complainant immediately intimated about the fire accident to Opposite parties no.1 and 2. The Opposite party no.1 insurance company deputed Mr. S. V. Subba Rao, surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant has submitted the relevant documents sought for by the surveyor on 3.8.2011. The complainant submits that despite several requests to settle the claim at `21,14,100/- there is no response from the Opposite Parties.
4. The complainant submits that on 17.4.2012 he received a e-mail to the effect that his claim is under process. The Opposite party no.1 repudiated his claim on 9.5.2012 on the ground that accident is not conclusively established. The complainant submits that though the surveyor has assessed the loss, the fire accident is established by police records and fire department records and despite submission of relevant documents, the Opposite party no.1 did not come forward to indemnify the loss. The repudiation of his claim amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence, this complaint for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. The Opposite party no.1 insurance company filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite party no.1 admitted that Standard Fie and Perils Policy was issued to the complainant for the period from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012 for the sum assured of `19,61,600/- with contents of `7,77,600/-. The Opposite party no.1 states that upon intimation they appointed a surveyor who assessed the net liability at `3,23,781/- and opined that cause of loss arising out of electrical circuit. The complainant has not submitted the bill books, invoices, proof of purchases to establish the availability of goods and books of accounts for the claim made by him. The Opposite party no.1 contends that the fire was not accidental and not due to any electrical short circuit. The circumstantial evidence and the reports of surveyor and the investigator show that the loss of property has not been conclusively established.
6. The opposite party no.1 submitted that in the absence of conclusive proof and failure to establish the extent of loss, it had rightly repudiated the claim on 9.5.2012. The complainant was trying to make unlawful gain under the garb of insurance policy. The Opposite party no.1 further submits that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the matter involves complex factual position which requires to be elaborately dealt with by a competent Civil Court for effective adjudication. The complainant could not establish the fire accident and the loss and as such repudiation of claim is justified. There is no deficiency of service on their part and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
7. The opposite party no.2 bank filed written version contending that the main grievance of the complainant is against the Opposite party no.1 which has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the accident is not conclusively established. The Opposite party no.2 bank has nothing to do with non-settlement of the claim by the Opposite party no.1. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party no.2-bank and the bank was unnecessarily impleaded as party without there being any cause of action against it. The Opposite party no.2 submitted that the complainant has availed loan from the bank and committed default in repayment of instalments. The Opposite party no.2-bank is not aware of taking of policy by the complainant.
8. The Opposite party no.2-bank further submitted that to safeguard its interest they have debited the amount from the loan account of the complainant towards insurance premium payable to New India Assurance Company . The Opposite party no.2 is not aware of the fire accident and the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant informed about the fire accident only in the month of July, 2011 by the time the bank had already initiated steps for recovery of dues by issuing notices to the complainant. It has nothing to do with the insurance policy taken by the complainant from the Opposite party no.1 and the repudiation of claim made by the Opposite party no.1- insurance company. The Opposite party no.2 bank has furnished the documents required by the complainant to enable him to process his claim with the Opposite party no.1. There is no cause of action against the opposite party no.2-bank and it was unnecessary impleaded in the lis. Therefore, the Opposite party no.2 sought for dismissal of complaint against it with exemplary costs.
9. The complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A27. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Manager-Legal of the opposite party no.1 and the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.2 filed their respective affidavits and the documents, Exs.B1 to B3.
10. The counsel for complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have filed written arguments.
11. The point for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim is justifiable?
12. The complainant availed term loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakh from the opposite party no.1-bank by making hypothecation of movables and offering equitable mortgage. The complainant executed loan documents in favour of the opposite party no.1-bank on 11.03.2010 and as per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan amount is repayable in 33 installments @ `16,930/- commencing from July, 2010. The complainant became defaulter and failed to pay the loan installments regularly.
13. It is not disputed that though the complainant failed to pay the loan installments regularly and the loan account became NPA, the opposite party no.1-bank had taken insurance policy from the opposite party no.2-insurance company by debiting the premium amount to the account of the complainant and the complainant could lodge claim under the insurance policy obtained by the opposite party no.1-bank. As such the complainant cannot have any grievance against the opposite party no.1-bank.
14. The opposite party no.2-insurance company issued standard fire and perils policy vide policy number FMD0000588000100 for a period of one year from w.e.f 10.022011 to 09.02.2012 for sum of `19,61,600/-
with contents of `7,77,600/-.
The complainant had taken on lease the mulgi bearing no.16-2-705/9/12 on plot no.6 and he has been doing the business of sales and service of mobile phones there and on 11.04.2011 fire broke at the premises causing damage to the insured items by the time the complainant intimated the fire department the official of which extinguished the fire.
15. On receiving intimation from the complainant about the fire accident at the premises, the opposite party no.2-insurance company deputed surveyor who after inspecting the spot opined that the loss caused to the insured property could be of `3,23,781/-. The surveyor in his report submitted to the opposite party no.2-insurance company that the complainant had not submitted bill books/invoices/ Mobile IMEI numbers purchase proof establishing the availability of goods.
16. The opposite party no.2-insurance company contends that the complainant has not been running business for two month prior to the accident and he defaulted in loan repayment and he had not paid rent for two months as also he had not paid salary to the employees from February, 2011. The opposite party no.2-insurance company contends that the investigator appointed by it opined that the fire accident was not accidental or due to any electric short circuit.
17. The fire brigade and the police opined that the cause of fire is of electric origin and the surveyor basing on the opinion of the fire brigade and final report submitted by the police to the magistrate concerned, opined that the fire is accidental its cause is of electric origin. In his report under the head, cause of fire the surveyor has made the following observation:
Cause of Loss:
The insured claimed that there could have been a short circuit and thus the fire could have been broke out. During our interaction, the insured stated that they used to switch off the individual switches but never used switched off the mains.
During the survey, noted that the fire was very severe in nature and thus we could not locate the point of short circuit.
From the Police Final Report, they have stated this to be a case of Accidental Fire due to Electric Origin.
18. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party no.2-insurance company that the fire is not accidental has no substance and not sustainable. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the entire premises and the insured items were burnt to ashes. The complainant had given the particulars of the insured items in tabular form in paragraph 6 of his affidavit which is extracted herein below:
Contents (as per specification) S.No Description of property Sum Insured Rs 1 Computers-3 nos 1,00,000 2 Printer-HP 20,000 3 Air conditioners-2 Nos 60,000 4 TV CLD 32 32,000 5 Wall mount fans 3,600 6 Infrastructure 4,50,000 7 Mobile machinery 50,000 8 Glow Sign Boards-6 Nos 20,000 9 Glass Work 30,000 10 Partitions 12,000 Total 7,77,600 b. Specifically covered Property S.No Description of property Sum Insured Rs 1 Chairs-6 Nos 14,000 2 Mobiles for Repairs 2,50,000 3 Stocks of Mobiles 9,00,000 4 Electrical Fittings 20,000 Total 11,84,000
19. The opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim on the premise of failure of the respondent to prove conclusively the loss sustained and the failure of the complainant to prove the extent of loss. The repudiation letter reads as under:
It is noted in the Final Survey report that bill books/invoices/purchase proof and the like were not submitted and the existence of property claimed to have been lost could not be conclusively established. The surveyor confirms that except statement of claims, no proper books of accounts were submitted to them. The nature of trade being dealing with the mobile handsets no proof of identity of those lost and their IMEI NOs which are unique to each handset, were submitted. The sale biis did not have the handset serial nos and purchase bills were unsigned. In respect of mobiles held for repairs, inward register, and duplicate acknowledgement slips were not submitted.
WE also utilized the services of M/s Sathyan Investigations to investigate on genuineness of occurrence, existence of material claimed to have been lost and other aspects of loss. The investigating firm comprises of a Retired Superintendent of Police and Retired Additional Superintendent of Police. The Investigators have highlighted that there had been defaults in repayment of the loan taken and the business was not economically viable.
Considering the circumstantial evidences and based on the reports of Sathyam Investigators and Final Survey Report of MVS Associates, it is observed that the loss of property as claimed has not been established conclusively. In the absence of such conclusive documentary proof and failure to establish the extent of loss, we regret, we are not in a position to consider the claim.
In the present circumstances, we are restrained to convey that the claim is not being considered. In case, if there are any other facts to the contrary and if the existence of the property and their subsequent loss could be established, you may place them before us, so that the decision might be revisited, if so required.
20. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complaint is maintainable in view of the decision of the Honble National Commission and the matter does not involve any complex questions of facts and that the complainant submitted all the documents to the surveyor as also the opposite party no.1-insurance company failed to settle the claim within the reasonable period of 3 months.
21. The complainant made intimation through email dated 11.04.2011 and the surveyor through his letter dated 12.04.2011 requested the complainant to preserve the charred remnants, offer metallic portions of the affected contents for quantification of loss and submit the following documents:
1. Detailed Occurrence report and cause of loss
2. Loss Intimation letters given to the Police, Fire and Bank authorities.
3. Fire Attendance Certificate and Police FIR & Panchanama
4. A brief note on the Company operations and records maintained. List of records now present, if any.
5. Copy of premises Lease Agreement and Layout drawing.
6. Details of Bank loan, when taken and present outstanding. A copy of last one year Bank statement/loan account details.
7. Copies of Bank Stock statements, VAT statements for the past one year.
8. Your Salvage value towards remnants
9. Filled in Claim Form and Claim Bill.
22. The complainant informed the surveyor through email on 19.05.2011 that he had submitted the required documents and yet the claim was not settled by the opposite party no.1. He had issued reminder to surveyor on 25.08.2011 which reads as under:
This is regarding the claim No. of policy NO. insured Dr.Mobile as I have already submitted all the records requested by you more than three weeks before and I still did not get any kind of intimation or acknowledgement or status regarding the claim procedure. Moreover, when I personally went to satyam investigations office at panjagutta, I was informed that the case was closed by them and further I need to contact the Royal sundaram officials.
I am disappointed by the way you communicate with your clients which is, you dont communicate at all. It has been four and half months and I was never informed about the status even after a few requests and reminders. I have already been through a lot of agony and I request you not to prolong it and please do the need some as soon as possible in order to settle the claim.
23. The surveyor responded on 25.08.2011 saying that the complainant and he would review the documents and substantiate various points that were not answered and take the claim to a logical conclusion.
Subha Rajagoplan, SME Claims of the opposite party no.1-insurance company has sent email on 26.08.2011 requesting the complainant to meet the surveyor and once the documents are submitted to the surveyor, they would file their report. She informed the complainant that in the claim of the like nature, the claimant is required to prove availability of goods at the insured premises at the material time , the goods are affected by an insured peril and the nature and extent of loss.
24. In this context, the complainant reiterated his stand that he already submitted the records sought for by the surveyor. The email dated 26.08.2011 reads as follows:
This is regarding the claim No. of Policy No. insured Dr.Mobile as I have arlreay submitted all the reocrds requested by you more than thre weeks before and I still did not get any kind of intimation or acknowledgement or status regarding the claim procedure. Moreover, when I personally went to satyam investigations office at panjagutta, I was informed that the case was closed by them and further I need to contact the Royal sundaram officials.
25. The surveyor required the complainant on 5.02.2012 to establish loss with the supporting IMEI nos and the surveyor expressed his disapproval with regard to purchase of material on cash basis which according to him is violation of RBI rules . Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that the claim was under process and it would update the proceedings to the complainant which, however it had not done whereon the complainant had sent the following email on 30.04.2012:
Its been over a month, you have received the documents and FSR and I am still waiting for your call/mail regarding the claim settlement as the pressure is mounting on me from all the corners and I am looking forward to settle down this matter as soon as possible and I hope you to get back to me in this week.
26. The surveyor through email 14.05.2012 stressed the need for submission of purchase bills for stock of mobiles, stock registers and IMEI numbers of the mobile phones, and customer demand notes with respect to the stock of mobiles owned by customers and proof of payments to the customers with their complete address. The surveyor stated the following photocopies were submitted by the complainant:
S# Description No of Sheets 1 Fire Insurance Claim Form-without company seal 2 2 Occurrence report Dt.30.12.2011 and addressed to the surveyor 1 3 Letter addressed to Fire Station Dt.13.04.2011 1 4 Letter addressed to The General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad dt.12.04.2011 1 5 Fire Attendance Certificate Dt.15.04.2011 1 6 Letter Addressed to the surveyor dt.13.04.2011 giving the details of documents maintained by you 1 7 Copy of Rental Deed 8 8 Laout copy uncertified 1 9 Letter of arrangement issued by State Bank of India 10 10 Statement of account for A/c #20059006551 4 11 List of items damage-un signed 1 12 Copies of Bills towards Hardware purchases 3 13 Copies of Bills towards electricial items 2 14 Copies of Bills from M/s Vinayak Computers 4 15 Copy of quotation from M/s Kaashif Communication dt.22.02.2010 1 16 Copy of Bill from M/s Shiva Arts and Graphics 1 17 Copy of receipt (without any revenue stamp/identity fo the person signed) 1 18 Letter addressed to Inspector of Police Dt.25.04.2011 1 19 Police Final Report 2 20 Copy of letter from Fire Officer to Inspector of Police dt.05.04.2011 1 21 Copy of Punchanama 1 22 FIR 2 23 Copies of reported purchases from M/s AG Mobiles-Illegible copies Format of 7 copies of Bills and the subsequent Bills were not tallying. No Bill was signed by the supplier. No Packing List/IMEI Numbers submitted 17 24 Xerox copies of Customer Copies random Serial Numbers 21 Slips
27. The complainant has filed a bunch of customer copy under ExA22 and copies of income tax return as also the copies of invoices under Ex27 and copy of rental agreement etc., to substantiate the loss of items. The surveyor has not considered the mobiles for repairs at column no.12 on the premise that the complainant has not submitted the customer notes which the complainant has filed under ExA22. The documents submitted by the complainant in answer to the objection that the complainant has not submitted proof of IMEI , monthly VAT declaration details of the supplier and copy of declaration submitted to bank, balance sheet, etc., require elaborate examination and cross examination which is not possible in summary proceedings before this Commission.
28. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the surveyor was influenced by the investigators report and that he disbelieved the documents such as reports issued by the government authorities and he relied upon the following decisions;
i) M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Mr.Ali Mohammad in C.C.No. 1083 of 2007 decided by this Commission on 28.10.2010. (WA of the complainant).
ii) Srivenkateshwera Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 1998(2) CLT 489.
iii) United India Insurance Company Ltd vs MKJ Corporation III(1996) CPJ 8 SC.
29. It is not disputed that the ratio laid in the aforementioned decisions is in regard to restriction on deputing another surveyor without assigning any reasons to differ from the report submitted by the previous surveyor and the surveyors report is not be all of the matter and end all to reject the claim of the insured. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the matter was not settled even beyond reasonable period of time. He has placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in R.P.No. 186 of 2007 between National Insurance Company Limited v. D.P.Jain wherein it was held that the regulations of IRDA are mandatory and the insurance company has to follow them.
30. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the surveyor has not considered the cost of the mobiles which were given for repair by the customers and the surveyor failed to consider the mobiles stock and purchase bills submitted by the complainant. He has relied on the decision of the National Commission in Chairman& Managing Director, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs M/s Balaji Cotton Traders wherein it was held;
"14. Regarding the actual quantity of the stocks destroyed, the Complainant had contended that 50 Bales and 340 Boras were destroyed, which comes to 542.80 quintals. Surveyor had deleted 210 Boras from this quantity. The State Commission had considered this issue and concluded that neither the Opposite Party nor the Surveyor were able to substantiate with any credible proof the reason for this deduction and, therefore, the State Commission had concluded that it should have been included in the loss. We have gone through the report of the Surveyor as also the evidence on record and we agree with the finding of the State Commission that the total number of Bales and Boras destroyed in the fire were 50 and 340 respectively and there was no justification for the Surveyor deducting 210 Boras.
15. Keeping in view the above facts, the loss assessed by the State Commission needs to be partly modified and worked out at Rs.4218/- per quintal for 542.80 quintals, which were destroyed in the fire. In this way, the value of the insured stocks lost in the fire would be Rs.22,89,530/- (i.e. 542.80 quintals x Rs.4218/- per quintal). After adding Rs.91,581/- on account of 4% purchase VAT and after deducting the salvage amount of Rs.500/- as also Rs.10,000/- on account of policy excess, the net payable amount comes to Rs.23,70,611/-. Regarding the interest to be levied on this amount, we find substance in the Complainants contention that interest @ 6% per annum as ordered by the State Commission is on the lower side and interest @ 9% per annum usually awarded by us in such cases is both reasonable and justified.16. To sum up, we dismiss First Appeal No. 389
of 2007 filed by the Opposite Party. Regarding First Appeal No. 520 of 2007 filed by the Complainant, in partial modification of the order of the State Commission and for the reasons stated in Paras 12 to 14 of this order, we hold that Opposite Party is liable to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.23,70,611/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. from 25.07.2003 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5000/-.
17. We note that in terms of order dated 06.08.2007 of this Commission the Opposite Party has already deposited a sum of Rs.10,24,606/- i.e. the loss assessed by the Surveyor with interest @ 10% with this Commission. This amount along with accrued interest be released in favour of the Complainant. Opposite Party is, therefore, directed to pay the balance amount with 9% interest per annum to the Complainant within a period of 8 weeks in full and final settlement of the insurance claim.
18. Both First Appeals stand disposed of on the above terms."
31. The complainant had not submitted the customer copies and stock and purchase bills which are filed before this Commission under Ex A22 and A27. As aforesaid, the documents which were not submitted to the surveyor and filed for the first time before this Commission require examination of the parties and the customers whose names are referred in the documents as the opposite party has disputed the documents and the evidence as regards the complex questions of fact cannot be decided by this Commission in summary proceedings. However, this Commission is of the view that the opposite party has the obligation to honour the assessment made by the surveyor unless it has cogent evidence at its disposal.
32. The National Commission, after referring various decisions of the Apex Court in Adarsh Chemicals vs United India Insurance Company Ltd in O.P.No. 398 of 2009 decided on 5.09.2013 held that the claim has to be settled in accordance with the assessment made by the surveyor. It was held ;
17. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 386, it was held that in the absence of any material to support investigators report, National Commission rightly held that fire was accidental and that Investigators attempt to attribute the same to arson was motivated and intended to benefit insurer.
18. Counsel for the complainant has also cited few authorities in his favour. In Harris Vs. Poland, Lloyds List Law Reports, Vol.69-35, March, 12, 1941, it was held :-
The object of the contract is to indemnify the assured against accidental loss by fire, and so long as the property is accidentally burnt, the precise nature of the accident seems to be immaterial. It may be therefore concluded that the loss in both cases falls equally, within the contract.
19. In Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507, it was held that appointing surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the insurer is impermissible.
20. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Zuari Industries Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 70, it was held that the duration of fire is not relevant as long as there is fire, which caused the damage, claim is maintainable even if the fire is for a fraction of a second.
21. Consequently, and according to the Surveyors report, we allow the complaint and hereby direct the Insurance Company, OP, to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,09,493/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, i.e. 01.02.1999, which be paid within 60 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till the date of realization. Costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be also paid by the opposite party to the complainant, within 60 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a, till realization.
33. The opposite party no.1insurance company has not assigned any reason for not settling the claim in so far as the assessment of the loss of the insured items made by the surveyor. The opposite party no.1 has thus rendered deficient service by not considering the report of the surveyor. The surveyor has assessed the loss at `3,73,781/-. We hold the complainant entitled to the amount of `3,73,781/- . The complainant is at liberty to approach civil court for the rest of the claim. For the foregoing reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a sum of `3,73,781/-/- and interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint 34. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1-insurance company to pay an amount of `3,73,781/--
with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment to the opposite party no.2-bank to be adjusted towards the outstanding due of the loan account of the complainant . The costs of the proceedings quantified at `5,000/-.
Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.20.01.2014 కె.ఎం.కె.* APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED NIL EXHIBITS MARKED For complainant Ex.A1 Copy of PAN Card No.AOQPM8244L Ex.A2 Copy of voter ID card Ex.A3 Copy of Ration Card Ex.A4 Copy of TOT Registration Certificate dated 30.01.2010 Ex.A5 Copy of Rental Deed dated 28.02.2010 Ex.A6 Copy of Bank Pass Book Ex.A7 Copy of Income Tax Returns along with Account Statement dated 22.12.2010 Ex.A8 Copy of Insurance Policy dated 10.02.2011 Ex.A9 Copy of Fire Intimation dated 13.04.2011 Ex.A10 Copy of Fire Attendance Certificate dated 15.04.2011 Ex.A11 Copy of Information to Police dated 25.04.2011 Ex.A12 Copy of FIR Ex.A13 Copy of Final Report dated 11.04.2011 Ex.A14 Copy of Fire Intimation to police from Fire Dept. dt.05.04.2011 Ex.A15 Copy of Panchanama dated 11.04.2011 Ex.A16 Copy of Intimation to Banker-SBI dated 12.04.2011 Ex.A17 Copy of Bank Statement dated 28.11.2012 Ex.A18 Copy of letter dated 06.12.2012 Ex.A19 Copy of postal receipt dated 10.12.2012 Ex.A20 Copy of email correspondence Ex.A21 Copy of repudiation letter dated 09.05.2012 Ex.A22 Copy of bunch of receipts Ex.A23 Copy of quotation of mobile Ex.A24 Copy of quotation of printer Ex.A25 Copy of quotation of AC Ex.A26 Copy of quotation of Computer Ex.A27 Copies of bills for infrastructure, furniture, computer etc., For opposite parties Ex.B1 Insurance Policy dated 10.02.2011 Ex.B2 Copy of Final Survey Report dated 15.03.2012 Ex.B3 Copy of claim denial letter dated 09.05.2012 with RPAD Slip Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER