BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 17th day of November, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 7/2017
M/s Kamal Foam Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr.Habibur Rahman,
B-110 & 111, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry – 9. …………. Appellant
Vs.
M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.261, J.N. Street,
Puducherry. ……….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.21/2014, dt.14.10.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.21/2014
M/s Kamal Foam Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr.Habibur Rahman,
B-110 & 111, PIPDIC Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry – 9. …………. Complainant
Vs.
M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.261, J.N. Street,
Puducherry. ……….. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru N.Mouraly,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru K.Ravikumar,
Advocate, Puducherry.
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 14.10.2016 made in C.C.21/2014.
2. The complainant before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the opposite party thereon is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The short matrix of the complainant as set out by it before the District Forum, is stated hereunder:
The complainant, who is engaged in manufacture of foam and having its industrial unit in PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Puducherry. Initially, they insured the stock with M/s National Insurance Company Limited for a period of one year between 12.06.2004 and 11.6.2005. Thereafter, it has taken the policy for the building including compound wall, etc. for one year covering the period from 10.05.2004 to 09.05.2005. Thereafter, it was renewed for a period of one year from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006 for the stocks pertaining to the trade also. It was renewed for the period from 17.11.2006 to 16.11.2007. Further, the complainant has taken policy covering the period from 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009 for the building and also for the raw materials, finished and unfinished goods for a sum of Rs.71,25,000/- and the same was periodically renewed. While so, on 12.05.2009, the complainant gave a letter to the insurance company to increase the sum assured from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.30.00 lakhs and the insurance company also received a sum of Rs.2,460/- for the extra premium. It was renewed later on other years and the last of which was for the period from 17.11.2009 to 16.11.2010. While so, fire accident has occurred in the complainant's company on 07.08.2012 and the same was intimated to the opposite party. Basing on the report of the surveyor, a sum of Rs.4,04,471/- was settled to the complainant. However, not satisfied with the said amount, the complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.11,87,907, being the balance claim. It is the specific case of the complainant that it has insured the semi-finished foods as well as packing materials, which have not been taken note of by the surveyor.
5. Reply version has been filed on behalf of the opposite party wherein it is stated that the insurance covers the building, machinery, etc, but it will not cover semi-finished goods as well as packing materials. It is further stated in the reply version that basing on the report of the surveyor, a sum of Rs.4,04,869.39 was settled to the complainant as full and final settlement which has been agreed by the complainant. Now, it is making a false claim as though semi-finished goods and packing material covers the insurance policy. Thus, the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Before the District Forum, on behalf of the complainant one witness was examined as CW1 and 22 documents were filed on behalf of it and were marked as Exs.C1 to C22. Another witness also was examined on the side of complainant as CW2. On the side of opposite party, one Mr.Lakshmipathy, Administrative Officer (Marketing) of the opposite company was examined as RW1 and the insurance surveyor Mr.Swaminathan, was examined as RW2. No document has been filed and marked on the side of opposite party.
7. The District Forum has framed the following three points for consideration:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service
and unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
8. On the first point whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum held that since the complainant has taken the policy from the opposite party and has laid the claim in view of the fire accident took place in the complainant's company, the complainant has to be considered as consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. On the second point whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the District Forum held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief since there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. On the third point, the District Forum found that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
9. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been laid by the complainant.
10. The fact that the complainant insured with the opposite party is not disputed. The last renewal was made for a period from 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012, as borne out by Ex.C11 also is not disputed. The fact of accident that took place in the complainant's company on 07.08.2012 and the complainant made a claim with the opposite party is also not disputed. The further fact that the surveyor deputed by the opposite party inspected the premises in question, investigated and assessed the damage is also not disputed. However, it is contended on behalf of the complainant that the amount settled to the complainant to a sum of Rs.4,04,869.39 is not the full amount. But, it is a case of opposite party that basing on the surveyor's report the said amount has been settled to the complainant which has been received as full and final settlement and now the complainant cannot lay a claim for more than what has been settled.
11. The only thing that has to be gone into by us is whether the complainant has insured with the O.P. the building, machinery, furniture and also the semi-finished goods and packing materials, as alleged by him in the complainant. The District Forum found that basing on the policies filed by the complainant, the semi-finished goods have not been included in the policy and for the loss of the same, opposite party need not pay compensation. In our considered view, the said stand taken by the District Forum is absolutely in order. CW1 admitted the fact that semi-finished goods and packing materials are not separately insured. This admission of the witness of the complainant proves the claim of the O.P. that the complainant has not separately insured the semi-finished goods and packing materials, has to be accepted.
12. One more aspect that has been contended on behalf of the complainant is that the surveyor in his report has given depreciation at 45% @ 2.5% per year on building which is unreasonable since the building is only six years old. Whether the building is six years old or more than that has to be analysed on the evidence of the complainant. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted "The premise of the complainant was renovated in 2006. The premise was built in 2001. This will clearly show that the building was not six years old, as claimed by the complainant. That apart, the complainant has not filed any proof to show that the building was constructed only six years before. In the absence of any proof that the building is only six years old, we are unable to be persuaded by the contention of the complainant that the building is only six years old. Therefore, after depreciation the building has been perfectly valued by the surveyor and the amount has been settled to the complainant.
13. One more aspect that has to be seen is that the complainant has received the above referred amount offered by the opposite party, which could be seen from Ex.C15. Though later, the complainant has sent a letter under Ex.C17, the fact that the complainant has accepted the amount without any protest and the claim now made could only be an afterthought. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is not entitled to any more amount than the amount paid by the opposite party. Hence, we are unable to take a different view from that of the view taken by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum dated 14.10.2016 made in C.C.21/2014 is confirmed. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, there is no costs
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
