National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Ramalingeswara Poultry Farm vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)CPJ50(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This first appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission in Complaint No. 85/1997. This is a claim for enhancement of the relief granted by the State Commission to the complainant M/s. Sri Ramalingeswara Poultry Farm.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
The appellant, a Poultry Farm, is covered by an insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 9.10 lakhs. During the currency of the insurance policy, the said farm was damaged by a cyclone which hit the area. The Insurance Company was immediately informed and a claim for an amount of Rs. 3,43,352/- was filed. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the net loss as Rs. 42,389/-. As this amount was not acceptable to the insured, it filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming a total loss of Rs. 5,59,699/- and an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 1,500/- for Surveyor's fee and Rs. 200/- as cost of legal notice, in all Rs. 5,92,399/-.
3. The State Commission in its order observed that the complainant filed an additional affidavit giving details of the loss only on 7.10.2002 i.e, eight months after the case was posted for arguments and since there was no opportunity for the opposite party to counter the allegations contained therein, the additional affidavit could not be taken into consideration, The Commission, therefore, held that there was no deficiency in service. However, as the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor i.e., Rs. 42,389/- has neither been accepted by the complainant nor the same was deposited by the Insurance Company, it ordered payment of the same along with interest of 9% from the date of the complaint. This appeal by the petitioner is against this order.
4. We have gone through the case paper and heard the parties. The main contention of the appellant is that the Surveyor in his report has acknowledged that the claim made by the appellant under various heads of loss amounts to Rs. 3,43,352/-. However, against the large number of items, the Surveyor has only remarked 'not admissible' without assigning any reason. The appellant argument is that soon after the damage by cyclone, he had appointed a Surveyor, C.H. Venkata Reddy, who gave a report dated 27.11.1996 estimating the damage to the building at Rs. 2,18,080/-. Similarly, he had also obtained a certificate dated 9.11.1996 from one Dr. D,S.M Mohan Reddy, Technical and Sales Officer of Srinivasa Hatcheries Ltd., a reputed poultry industry, to the effect that all the poultry seeds like maize, de-oiled cake, fish, soyabin cake, sunflower oil cake, brown rice and minerals due to cyclone were totally damaged due to formation of fungus and bacteria and that the said materials are not fit for poultry consumption. He has also relied on a notice dated 9.11.1996 issued by the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat, Madikiu, asking him to remove the dead poultry birds and the damaged poultry seeds lying on both sides of National Highway No. 5 since they were causing a health hazard to the village and should be removed within three days' time. His argument is that this notice evidences that the poultry birds died and the seed was damaged due to the cyclone.
5. First we may consider the relevant of the additional affidavit dated 7.10.2002 which was not considered by the learned State Commission. It is seen that the complaint before the State Commission was filed some time in October, 1997. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed in January, 2000. In the complaint as well as in the affidavit of January, 2000, the complainant referred to both the reports of C.H. Venkata Reddy and Dr. Mohan Reddy and filed copies of the report. The additional affidavit of 7.10.2002 which is a brief one, once again makes a reference to the report of the Surveyor, C.H. Venkata Reddy. Since this report was already referred to in the complaint itself, we need to take this into consideration. But in the additional affidavit of 7.10.2002, the complainant for the first time referred to the letter dated 9.11.1996 of the Executive Officer, Madiki Gram Panchayat. We, therefore, will not consider this particular letter of the Village Panchayat.
6. However, the report of C.H. Venkata Reddy, the report of Dr. Mohan Reddy and the report of Insurance Company Surveyor themselves show that the appellant has suffered heavy damage due to cyclone. The insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 9,10,000/- covered following risks:
(i) Superstructure of the building Rs. 5,10,000/-
(ii) Machinery including
Electrical Motor Rs. 1,80,000/-
(iii) Stock of poultry feed in
loose and in bags including
poultry medicines Rs. 2,20,000/-.
7. The appellant has been taking insurance policy right from 1989 and he did not claim any compensation from the Insurance Company earlier. One day after the said cyclone, he sent a brief letter to the Insurance Company mentioning that he suffered a loss of Rs. 3 lakhs on the shed and Rs. two and a half lakhs on the poultry seeds and that a Surveyor may be sent to assess the damage. The report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company was made available after about two months. The claim made by the appellant is Rs. 3,43,352/- (comprising Rs. 1,31,340/- for building, Rs. 2,12,012/- for the loss of seeds loss). The appellant explained that he has reduced the claim from Rs. five and a half lakhs to Rs, 3,43,352/- at the instance of the Surveyor who promised that the matter perhaps be settled if the claim is so reduced.. The Surveyor disallowed the claim for damage caused to pipes and sprinkles, electric wiring and repairs in the cages on the plea that they are not covered under the policy. He disallowed the claim for iron trusses on the ground that they were not damaged. While we understand that iron trusses may not have suffered damage and perhaps can be re-used, we see no logic in arguing that pipes and sprinkles, cages repairs and electrical wiring are not covered by the policy when the entire building and machinery including electrical motors are covered. There is no justification to exclude these items.
8. As regards the poultry seeds right from the day after cyclone, the appellant has been claiming that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- due to damage caused to the seeds. The Surveyor in his report allowed the loss on maize on the ground that it was damaged, but disallowed the claim on ground nut cake, fish, soyabeen sunflower oil cake, broken rice and the minerals on the ground that they were not damaged due to cyclone. We fail to understand when the entire building collapsed and suffered heavy loss due to cyclone, how one can argue that the seeds stored therein not been affected. The certificate issued by Dr. Mohan Reddy, Technical Officer clearly states that the seeds affected by the cyclone are unfit for consumption. We think that the disallowance made by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company is quite arbitrary. This must have happened because, as alleged by the appellant, the Surveyor visited the damaged site in the absence of the appellant and without proper notice.
9. We, therefore, direct the respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 3,33,4027- i.e., after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,9507- from the claim of Rs. 3,43,3527-. Since the Surveyor's report was available on 18.1.1997, we allow a reasonable period of 2 1/2 months and, therefore, direct that the above amount should carry an interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.1997, The Order of the State Commission is modified to the above extent and the appeal is partly allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- which is paid by the respondent to the appellant. The order may be complied within four weeks from the receipt of this order.