State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... vs 1.Narne Seshaiah,Prakasam District, ... on 28 June, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.989/2009 against C.C.No.255/2008, DISTRICT FORUM, PRAKASAM DIST. at ONGOLE. Between The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by the Branch Manager, Office No.3, IInd Floor, D.No.47/11/8, G.K.Towers, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam 16, A.P. . Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 And 1.Narne Seshaiah, S/o.Veera Raghavaiah, R/o.Ommevaram Post, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent / Complainant 2. The Tobacco Board, Rep. by the Auction Superintendent, Plot form No.23, Throvagunta, G.T.Road, Ongole-2. Respondent/ Opp.party no.1 Counsel for the Appellant : Mr A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.A.Ramakrishna-R1. R2- served. F.A.No.990/2009 against C.C.No.254/2008, DISTRICT FORUM, PRAKASAM DIST. at ONGOLE. Between The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by the Branch Manager, Office No.3, IInd Floor, D.No.47/11/8, G.K.Towers, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam 16, A.P. . Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 And 1. Annem Venkatarami Reddy, S/o.Venkataswami reddy, R/o.Reparla , N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Tobacco Board, Rep. by the Auction Superintendent, Plot form No.23, Throvagunta, G.T.Road, Ongole-2. Respondent/ Opp.party no.1 Counsel for the Appellant : Mr A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.Subba Reddy-R1 R2-served. QUORUM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN ( Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member ).
**** F.A.No.989/2009:
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.255 of 08 on the file of District Forum Ongole , opp.party No.2 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant insured his tobacco barn with opposite party no.2 Insurance Company for the period from 9.11.2005 to 8.11.2006 for a sum of Rs.1lakh. Opposite party no.1 is the Tobacco Board which insured the tobacco barns of the farmer. On 29/30.10.2006 a cyclone damaged the complainants barn and opposite party no.2 deputed a surveyor to assess the loss who deducted 50% towards depreciation. The complainant submits that they repair the barns every year so the question of depreciation which is not mentioned in the policy does not arise. The complainant submitted all the required documents but till the date of filing of the complaint no amount was paid. Meanwhile the complainant took an estimation to construct a new barn for an amount of Rs.72,500/-. Opposite parties paid the amounts to some of the barn owners but did not settle the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.1 lakh together with interest, compensation and costs.
Opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that it is only a facilitator and on receiving the information about the damage it informed opp.party no.2 and opp.party no.2 alone is liable to pay the insurance amount.
Opposite party no.2 filed counter admitting issuance of the policy and also the assessment of the surveyor at Rs.8000/-. The documents filed in the Court are not correct and created and manipulated by the complainant only for the purpose of gaining compensation. The complainant is entitled to Rs.8,000/- as assessed by the surveyor.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and B1 allowed the complaint in part directing opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.26,885/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from two months after the report of the surveyor i.e. from 2.3.2007 till the date of payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.2000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation. The petition against opp.party no.1 dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, opp.party no.2 preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party no.2 vehemently contended that the surveyor is an independent authority and he assessed the loss only as per the procedure and norms laid down by the IRDL and submitted his report based on which the Insurance Company sent the cheque for Rs.8,000/- to the complainant which was returned as not accepted.
The facts not in dispute are the issuance of insurance policy, the period of coverage and also the sum assured of Rs.1 lakh. It is also an admitted fact that the barn was damaged in cyclone on 30. 10.2006. The complainant filed Ex.A1 photographs of the damaged barn and also filed Ex.A3 which is the copy of the statement showing the particulars of damage caused to the tobacco barn issued by the Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board, Ongole. Ex.B1 is the Survey Report of Sri N.Varahaswami in which he observed as follows:
The barn and the wall were collapsed upto lintel portion and roof structure trusses and purling were broken. Tiers18 nos. were broken at its random. Roof sheets 3 nos. roof ceiling sheets 6 nos. were crushed and fallen under the debris. Top angular was cut into pieces. Flue pipes were badly pressed and damaged. Window was fallen and broken.
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS:
S.No Particulars No.Units Rs.unit Amount. Rs.
1. Bricks 2000 2.00 4,000.00
2. Cement 12 165.00 1,980.00
3. Sand 2 500.00 1,000.00
4. Tiers 20 450.00 9,000.00
5. Trusses 6 300.00 1,800.00
6. Flue pipes 100 40.00 4,000.00
7. Furnace Bricks 6 40 240.00
8. Roof ceiling sheets -6 6 350.00 2,100.00
9. Roof Sheets-3 3 550.00 1,650.00
10. Mason charges to rebuilt The damaged walls. 12,000.00 12,000.00 37,770.00 Less 50% depreciation on all 18,885.00 Assessed loss on the barn 18,885.00 SALVAGE : The salvage value of the damaged material may fetch Rs.885.00 VALUATION : The depreciated value of the barn was worked out for Rs.57,681.70 as against they insured for Rs.1,00,000.00.
Hence , under insurance clause is not applicable.
NET LOSS ASSESSED:
A Assessed loss on the barn 18,885.00 B. Less Salvage Value 885.00 18,000.00 C. Less Policy excess 10,000.00 RECOMMENDED CLAIM AMOUNT 8,000.00 It is clear from above that the surveyor has unilaterally deducted 50% depreciation on all the items including mason charges. It is pertinent to note that the masonry charges have been arrived at Rs.12000/- by the surveyor and he deducted 50% depreciation even on these masonry charges, together with sand, flue pipes, bricks, ceiling sheets etc. The District Forum has taken total loss at Rs.37,770/- which has been assessed by the surveyor towards the total loss and deducted the salvage value and the policy excess of Rs.10,000/- and arrived at Rs.26,885/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an amount Rs.17,733/- has been deposited vide cheque no.846216 dt.18.6.09. Taking into consideration that interest at 9% p.a. has already been awarded, we are of the considered view that awarding compensation of Rs.2000/- can be set aside .
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and order of the District Forum is modified setting aside the amount of Rs.2000/- awarded towards compensation while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.990/2009: This appeal also deals with similar facts with respect to period of insurance coverage, sum assured, the cyclone affected tobacco barn and the disputed surveyors report with respect to depreciation and therefore is being disposed of by this common order. In this case the surveyor assessed the total loss at Rs.37,870/- and the District Forum had deducted the salvage value of Rs.1296/- and policy excess of Rs.10,000/- and arrived at Rs.26,574/- out of which the opposite party only paid Rs.19,000/- and therefore the complainant is entitled to Rs.7,574/-. Since interest at 9% p.a. has already been awarded by way of damages and Rs.19,000/- has already been paid earlier we see no reason to also award compensation. Therefore we set aside the amount of Rs.2000/- awarded towards compensation while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
In the result F.A.990/09 is allowed in part and order of the District Forum is modified with respect to setting aside of compensation of Rs.2000/- only while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum . Time for compliance 4 weeks.
Sd./PRESIDENT Sd./MEMBER Sd./MEMBER Pm* Dt. 28.6.2011.