KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.399/2016 & APPEAL No.617/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 28.09.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.19/2013 of CDRF, Kollam)

PRESENT:

A 399/2016

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. S. Rajeev)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

A 617/2016

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appeal 617/2016 is filed by the complainant and A399/2016 is filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.19/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum for short) dated 31.03.2016, by which the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1,86,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs and compensation to the complainant.

2.       The averments contained in the complaint in brief, are as follows:The complainant has been conducting a business in the name and style of ANAND Metals and Home Appliances in Anand Building, Market Road, Karunagappally dealing with home appliances.  He is the owner of the building as well as its Proprietor of the business.  He had taken a Shop-Keeper’s Insurance Policy from the opposite party for the period 28.09.2004 to 28.09.2005.  A burglary occurred in his shop room in the first floor of the building during the night of 21.02.2005 and lost contents in the shop worth Rs.1,86,500/-, including T.V., fans, sewing machines etc.  The Karunagappally Police has registered a crime regarding the incident.  The incident was reported to the State Bank of Karunagappally on 22.02.2005 as the stock was hypothecated to the Bank.   The Bank instructed the complainant to lodge the claim before the opposite party, Insurance Company which was done on 22.02.2005 itself.  The opposite party deputed its surveyor who inspected the insured premises on 05.03.2005 and submitted a report on 30.03.2005.  Since no action was taken by the opposite party, despite various enquiries, the complainant was forced to approach Integrated Grievances Management System facilitated by IRDA through online for the settlement of the claim.  The opposite party insurance company took several contentions and finally they repudiated the claim by the letter dated 03.07.2012, after a span of eight years from the date of lodging the claim.  The complaint was instituted alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and further alleging that the repudiation is wrong.  The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,86,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) with interest @14% from the date of submission of the insurance claim and to grant other reliefs.

3.       The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  On receipt of the claim made by the complainant the opposite party deputed a surveyor and after inspection he filed report stating that the burglary took place in the godown of the complainant which is situated in the first floor of the building.  It is not covered by the insurance policy.  The complainant has not submitted relevant documents to prove the claim even though the surveyor demanded the documents by issuing the letter.  Complainant is not entitled to realize any amount from the opposite party and the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.       Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked on his side.  DW1 was examined and Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.       Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party had filed A 399/2016 and the complainant has filed A 617/2016.

6.       Since both appeals were filed against the same order both appeals were heard and considered together.

7.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

8.       Parties are referred according to their status/rank mentioned in the complaint.

9.       There is no dispute regarding the validity of the insurance policy, the burglary, the loss sustained to the complainant due to burglary and the amount claimed by the complainant.  The contention of the opposite party is that the burglary occurred in the first floor of the building which is the godown of the complainant and it is not covered by the policy.  There is no dispute to the fact that the burglary took place in the first floor of the building.  The counsel for the appellant in A 399/2016 submitted that the District Forum ought to have found that since the insured shop was not affected on account of the burglary, the opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.  The contention of the opposite party is that the policy covers only the shop room situated in the ground floor of the building and the burglary took place in the godown of the complainant which was in the first floor of the building.

10.     The District Forum after perusing the insurance policy rejected the contention of the opposite party that the policy covered only the shop room situated in the ground floor.  The complainant has produced the insurance policy issued to him by the opposite party which was marked as Exhibit P1.  The opposite party has also produced the copy of the insurance policy which is marked as Exhibit D1.  In Exhibit P1 policy it is clearly stated in Section 2 Burglary, House Breaking: “All contents in the shop premises situated at the above address and the address is mentioned as AC Anand Metals and Home Appliances, Anand Building, Market Road, Karunagappally”.  On a perusal of the Exhibit P1 policy it can be seen that no specific room or room number is mentioned.  It is not stated that the policy covers the contents in the first floor of the building alone.  Further, it is stated as “all contents” in the shop premises. As rightly found by the District Forum,the contention of the opposite party that the first floor of the building where burglary took place is not covered by the policy and the shop room in the first floor of the building alone is covered by the policy is not sustainable.  So the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party is wrong and the complainant is entitled to get the amount claimed by him.  Considering the evidence the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  We consider that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the said finding of the District Forum.  The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,86,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) with interest @9% per annum on that amount and the rate of interest ordered by the District Forum is just and reasonable.  The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and costs to the complainant which is also just and reasonable.  So no interference is called for regarding those aspects.  In view of the above discussion, A 399/2016 is liable to be dismissed.

11.     The grievance of the complainant who had filed A 617/2016 is that the District Forum ought to have held that the complainant is entitled to get interest @14% per annum on the amount ordered from the date of claim till realization.  The District Forum ordered interest @9% per annum on the amount ordered from the date of complaint.  From the records it can be seen that the burglary in the shop room of the complainant took place on 21.02.2005 and the Police registered the crime on 22.02.2005.  On the same day the complainant submitted the claim before the opposite party.  Exhibit D3 shows that the surveyor of the opposite party inspected the place on 02.03.2005 and he filed the report on 30.03.2005.   The opposite party issued Exhibit P8 (Exhibit D4) letter dated 03.07.2012 to the complainant repudiating the claim of the complainant.  So it can be seen that the claim was repudiated by the opposite party after a span of more than seven years.  That itself shows that there is deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party.  It is stated by the complainant that he had approached Integrated Grievances Management System facilitated by IRDA through online for the settlement of the claim.  Before the IRDA the opposite party insurance company took several contentions and finally repudiated the claim on 03.07.2012 by issuing Exhibit P8 letter.  No reasonable explanation is given by the opposite party for the inordinate delay of several years on their part in considering the claim of the complainant.  The claim of the appellant/complainant is that he is entitled to get interest for the amount ordered from the date of submission of claim by him before the opposite party.  The counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MKJ Corporation reported in III (1996)CPJ 8 (SC).  In that decision it was held that the reasonable period for taking a decision whether the claim requires to be settled or rejected in accordance with the policy is two months from the date of filing of the report by the surveyor and the insurer is liable to pay interest from that date.  From Exhibit D3 it can be seen that the surveyor filed report on 30.03.2005.  Two months period is to be computed from that date.  So it will be 30.05.2005.  So the opposite party insurance company is liable to pay interest on the amount ordered from 01.06.2005 till realization.  Appellant/complainant had claimed that he is entitled to get interest @14% per annum on the amount ordered but he has not stated on what ground he had claimed interest at that rate.  The District Forum ordered the opposite party to pay interest @9% per annum on the amount ordered, which is just and reasonable.  So the prayer of the appellant/complainant to allow him to realize interest @14% per annum cannot be allowed and hence rejected.  The appellant/complainant is entitled to get interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.Rs.1,86,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) from 01.06.2005 till realization.  So the order passed by the District Forum is to be modified to that effect. 

12.     In the result, A 399/2016 is dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

13.     A 617/2016 is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is modified as: Opposite party/respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,86,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) with interest @9% per annum from 01.06.2005 till realisation and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs and compensation to the complainant/appellant.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

14.     In A 399/2016 the respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand),the statutory deposit made by the appellant/opposite party, by filing proper application, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount due to him from the appellant/opposite party.

SL