State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.K. Kannan ,Theni District vs The Branch Manager ,Dindigul District on 29 October, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.206/2007 (Against order in C.C.NO.7/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Dindigul) DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 G.K. Kannan S/o. Kaluvadayan President-Genguvarpatti Town Panchayat periyakulam Taluk Theni District Appellant / Complainant Vs. The Branch Manager M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Batlagundu Dindigul District Respondent / Opposite party The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.18,78,000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.4.2006 in C.O.P.No.7/2005, and award the amount as prayed for the original complaint. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.10.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, perusing the written arguments, , lower court records and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellants/ Complainant : Mr.J.Subramanian, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent/ Opposite party: Mr. S. Kanniah, Advocate M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The complainant, not satisfied by the order of the District Forum, in granting amount, has come to this commission for enhancement, i.e., as prayed for in the complaint.
2. The complainant was running a poultry farm at Viralipatty, for which he had constructed 15 sheds, spending a sum of Rs.19 lakhs, which were insured with the opposite party, for the period 15.12.2003 to 14.12.2004, by paying annual premium of Rs.12,599/-.
Unexpectedly on 31.7.2004, there was a fire accident in the poultry, in which not only the sheds, but also chicks, chicken feed, and other apparatus have completely damaged, worth about Rs.27 lakhs, for which a police complaint was given, resulting registration of a case also, as fire accident.
3. The complainant based upon the policy, as well as the estimates given by the engineers, lodged a claim for Rs.26,53,530/-, which was repudiated, on unjustifiable grounds, as if, only sheds alone were insured not others, which should be construed as deficiency in service. The opposite parties have offered to pay only a sum of Rs.416425/-, which is not proportionate to the loss sustained by the complainant, as agreed to be reimbursed by the opposite party. Hence a complaint came to be filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.17,78,000/-, for the damage caused by the fire, and a further sum of Rs.1 lakh, as compensation, for mental agony.
4. The opposite party/ respondent, admitting the policy, opposed the claim, on the ground with among other grounds, that the complainant had taken insurance only for 15 thatched sheds, occupied as a poultry farm, excluding birds, and that for the loss sustained by the fire, the complainant was entitled to only a sum of Rs.4,10,425/-, which was offered to pay, refused, that the complainant is claiming compensation for the items, not covered under the policy also, and that the denial of the total claim, conceding the compensation as per the policy, cannot be treated or termed as deficiency in service. Thus a prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Forum, based upon the affidavits, as well as considering the exorbitant claims, made by the complainant, deduced a conclusion, under eight headings, the complainant is entitled to compensation, quantifying the same at Rs.5,87,500/-, more or less based upon the surveyor report, alongwith cost, directing, to pay interest also, as per order dt.26.4.2006, which has not given satisfaction to the complainant, resulting this appeal.
6. It is the common case of the parties, that under Ex.A1, the complainant/ appellant, insured his poultry sheds, numbering 15, for the sum assured, Rs.19,12,500/-, which is also seen from Ex.B3, the policy. The risk covered is poultry farm (excluding birds therein), thatched shed, occupied as poultry farm, thereby indicating, the insurance was only for building, i.e., thatched shed. It is also further stated, under the heading description of risk- Shed occupied as poultry thatched shed (excluding birds therein), 15 No. of shed, each valued Rs.1,27,500/-. Therefore, the policy conditions, make it abundantly clear, that the complainant is not entitled to claim any damage, for the death of the birds, since i.e., specifically excluded. It is also an admitted fact, that there was a fire due to short circuit in the electrical line, on 31.7.2004, in which, more or less entire poultry farm was destroyed or damaged. Upon compliant by the complainant, a surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, to assess the actual damage, including to suggest the liability of the claim, pursuant to the policy. As seen from Ex.B1, the surveyor assessed the net claim amount, at Rs.4,06,425/-. When the complainant lodged a claim before the opposite party, based upon Ex.A1 policy, the opposite party offered to pay the above said amount, not to the satisfaction of the complainant, resulting refusal to accept, then coming to the consumer forum, claiming compensation, as indicated above, which ended in partial success, once again not satisfied the complainant is before us, as appellant.
7. Admittedly the 15 buildings insured, for which sum assured, are all thatched shed, aged about two years or so. It is the common knowledge, the life of the thatched shed will not be a long period, it depends upon the atmospheric conditions, viz. moisture, rain, affected by termite etc. Therefore, while calculating the value for the old thatched building, the value as on that date viz. the date of construction should not be taken, depreciation should be given, and that amount alone should be taken, as the actual loss, and not as claimed by the complainant, in this case, as on the date of filing of the petition, for new thatched shed, for which alone, engineers report obtained, that too, in our considered opinion, as rightly recorded by the District Forum, escalating the price. Therefore, the non-acceptance of the value given by the complainant, or rejection of the documents relied on by the complainant, to prove the value of the sheds, cannot be faulted. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, we have to search, for materials, where comes the surveyor report.
8. The insurance company is entitled, statutorily also, to nominate or appoint a surveyor, to assess the damage, in order to reimburse the claim of the policy holder. In this way, a surveyor was appointed, and he had inspected the premises on 31.7.2004, and on 2.8.2004, receiving the instruction from the opposite party on 31.7.2004, around 7.00 a.m, i.e. without causing delay. As seen from the report, he had elaborately described the nature of poultry, where and how it was commenced etc., and it appears this is, the 2nd largest farm in Theni district. Originally the poultry form was started with 7 sheds, and increased to 15 by constructing another 8 sheds. As seen from page 3 of Ex.B1, he had given working details, for construction of thatched shed, roof etc., including material and labour. Taking into account, the cost of pillar, errection charges, knitted MS wire, chicken mesh, to lay water pipe etc., in which calculation, we are unable to find any factual error, since nothing is pointed out, as if the surveyor has committed any deficiency. The District Forum, considering this report, and its reasonableness, accepted the value given for 15 sheds, less the depreciation, valued the stone pillar also, including labour charges, further fixing the amount for laying pipes, including rewiring etc., Thus in detail, reached a conclusion, that the complainant is entitled to only a sum of Rs.5,87,500/- which appears to be quiet reasonable in the absence of anyother, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, which we have already extracted, at the first instance itself.
As seen from the complaint, for 15 sheds, a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- is claimed, and for stone pillar Rs.78000/- claimed, for knitted MS wire, chicken mesh a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- claimed, and a further sum of Rs.150000/- is claimed under the heading water pipeline laying cost, and all these headings were taken into account, and in the absence of acceptable materials, amount is quantified. For flooring, feeding, amounts claimed are negatived, in which we are unable to find any fault, since that is not covered specifically, under the policy, whereas it covers only sheds, if at all that should include electrical wiring, pipeline etc., and nothing more. In the reasonable order passed by the District Forum, we are unable to find any error, either on facts or on law, though the complainant had not satisfied, about the amount granted.
9. An attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to urge that the complainant suffered mental agony etc., for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible in this case. The fire had taken place due to short circuit as pleaded. As and when reported, without any delay surveyor was appointed, value assessed, amount offered, thereby the opposite party, satisfying the service availed or hired, as the case may. If the complainant is unable to satisfy himself, for that ,under the heading, mental agony or deficiency in service, no amount could be offered, since it is not the case of total repudiation of the claim, whereas the dispute was regarding the quantum of amount, payable under the policy. This was also taken into account, and appropriate order was passed, which we are inclined to confirm as such. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits, and liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in O.P.No.7/2005 dt.26.4.2006. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/Insurance