Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

86/2011

R.Rajaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.Madhusudhanan

21 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 24.03.2011

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Reservation: 10.12.2021

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Order: 21.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.86/2011

 

TUESDAY, THE 21^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

1.R.Rajaram (Deceased),

2.R.Vinodh,

3.R.Gopinath,

All are residing at No.3/20, Karpagambal Nagar,

Nandhiyambakkam post,

Minjur panchayat,

Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District.                                                        .. Complainants.                                                              ..Versus..

The Senior Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

Chennai Division-Vii, Post Box No.1048,

H.M.Centre, II Floor, 35/18, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.                                                                 ..  Opposite party.

 

******

Counsel for the complainant                            : Mr.S.Madhusudhanan, Adv.

Counsel for the opposite party                        : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan., Advocate.

 

 

On perusal of both side records and having heard the oral argument of both sides we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection Act 1986 for seeking direction to pay total sum of Rs.3,93,400/- towards insurance claim and to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for damages for physical and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked and written argument filed.  While so, on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked and written argument filed.  

            3. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The 1^st complainant has taken an insurance policy viz standard fire and special perils policy from the opposite party. The policy period is from 01.03.2009 to 28.02.2010.  On 27.01.2010 around 3.10pm while the complainant was in High court of Madras, he received a phone message from his neighbor stating that fire and smoke was expelling inside from the complainant’s house and fire fighting squad was quenching the fire.  The next day that is on 28.02.2010 by 12.00am complainant and his elder son VONOTH went to his house and found that some thieves had trespassed in the compound wall of his house and broke opened the behind door and stolen all the house hold domestic article and also caused fire to the building which caused damage to the books, clothes, beds and documents etc., and complainant’s son VONODTH ledge a police complaint before MINJUR police station.  After inspection CSR also given by the inspector of police dated 31.01.2010, FIR also registered on 01.02.2010.

4. The Complainant and his son went to the opposite party’s office and submitted claim form for a sum of Rs.87,400/- dated 12.02.2010.  The surveyor of the opposite party inspected and surveyed the house and the said surveyor demanded to furnish the comprehensive quotation for the fire damaged building and doors. Accordingly the complainant furnished the quotation issued by the licensed civil engineer for the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-.  On 12.05.2010 the complainant claim was repudiated. Complainant sent legal notices and finally claimed Rs.3,27,400/- towards revised damages and Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony but they issued reply with untenable grounds. Hence this complaint is filed.

5. Written version of the opposite party in brief:-

It is submitted after fire accident this opposite party had promptly appointed independent surveyor licensed by IRDA.  The surveyor had submitted his report dated 19.04.2010 and after inspecting the damaged building and after obtaining necessary details from the complainant/ insured. As per the surveyors Report and the written statements submitted by the complainant, the insured premise was left unoccupied for quite a long time (about SIX MONTHS) thereby the complainant was careless and negligent and exposed the premises to such act of theft and fire accident which is against the letter and spirit of the policy of Insurance.  In the common knowledge that insurance is a protection against unforeseen calamities and the insured in supposed to take every care of the insured premises as if it is uninsured.  In the instance case, as per the documents filed the complainant himself he was staying at Vijaya Lodge for several months prior to the alleged fire accident.  Further as per the letter dated 16.08.2008 addressed to the junior engineer, Electricity Board, he had clearly stated that a snake had entered into the meter box and snake skeleton was found when his son happened to visit the promises.  Further as per the photographs of the location of the building, it is clear that the building itself was in a desolated place and is not surrounded by the building/residences in the vicinity.  Thus it is very clear and as  per the complainant’s own admission, the insured premises was uncared, for that he cannot make claim for his own negligence and lapse.  On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. One of the conditions (3-B) of the policy is to be effect that the insurer is not liable if the insured premise was left unoccupied for more than thirty days.  In the instant case, as per the own admission of the complainant and also in the communication sent to the insurance surveyor, he has clearly admitted that the insured premises was unoccupied for more than five months and it is clearly a violation of the policy condition.  Hence the complainant has no right to claim under the policy for the alleged loss suffered by him.  Accordingly the insurer had vide their letter dated 12.05.2010 promptly communicated the repudiation of the claim.  Hence the allegation of deficiency in service does not stand scrutiny and liable to be rejected.

7. The opposite party had admittedly covered only the superstructure of the building as stated in the policy for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.  This policy does not cover the contents of the building for which separate valuation is required to be paid at the time of taking the policy and necessary premium should be paid as consideration thereof. It is clear from the policy schedule the insurance does not cover any of the contents of the building and cover only the superstructure.  The complainant being literate (an advocate) is well aware of the same and his claim for property not covered under the policy is vexatious and made with an intent to misguide this forum.   Hence it is humbly submitted that any claim for damage to any of the articles/contents stored in the premises is liable to dismiss in limine.  This opposite party while repudiating the claim by their letter dated 12.05.2010 had also stated this aspect in clear and unambiguous terms.

8. Further complainant had not produced any proof for the ownership of the various articles claimed by him and he had not filed any documents on the actual amount spent by him out the estimate and had not produced any shred of evidence for having spent any sum for repairing the building by way of invoices or receipts . Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

9.The points for consideration are:-

            1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

10. Point No.1:-

It is admitted that the 1^st complainant’s house was insured under standard fire and special perils policy with the opposite party.  The policy period from 01.03.2009 to 28.02.2010 risk covered for building and earthquake (fire and short) total sum insured is Rs.10,00,000/-, total premium paid by the complainant is Rs.393/- including service tax. Pending triall the 1^st complainant was died and thereby his son Vinodh and Gopinath are added as complainant’s Nos. 2 & 3 in the complaint as his legal heirs.

            11. As per the terms and conditions of the policy in clause B (3)(b) stated under any of the following circumstances the insurance ceases to attach as records the property affected unless the insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damages, obtained the sanction of the company signified by endorsement upon the policy by or on behalf of the company if the building insured or containing the insured property becomes unoccupied and so remains for a period of more than thirty days. The opposite party quoting the above provision and stated that the complainant himself submitted the claim form along with claim letter dated 12.02.2010 and he has stated that he underwent a lazar operation for his two eyes in the year 2007. Thereafter he continuously had taken treatment. 

12. Further the complainant has stated that he is temporarily residing in room No.30, Vijaya lodge, 4^th floor, No.14 Frances joseph Street, Chennai 600 001 for the last 6 months. He has stated the same version on 29.01.2010 before the sub-inspector of police Minjur police station to the effect CSR No.44/2010 also issued on 31.01.2010. Again on 01.02.2010 complainant issued another complaint to the same police station and in the complaint also he has stated that he was temporarily residing for last 5 months in above said Vijaya lodge, Chennai.  Apart from that he has stated that his EB connection was disconnected one year before due to defects.  Therefore it is very crystal clear that the insured house is not having any EB connection for the last one year before the date of occurrence.  Further complainant also not residing in the insured house for the last five months before the fire accident occurred.  Apart from that the policy is not applicable for the stocks/contents which are kept in the building. As per Ex.B1 the insurance is ceases if the building insured or containing in the insured property becomes unoccupied and so remains for the period for more than thirty days.  As per the complaint, FIR, claim letter and the surveyor report that the insured’s property remained unoccupied for more than thirty days and therefore the opposite party rightly repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence we found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

13. Point Nos.2&3:-

We have discussed and deduced that there is no deficiency in service on the part the opposite party.  Hence complainants are not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly point Nos.2&3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 20^th day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1	2005-2009	Family Ration card.	Xerox
Ex.A2	29.01.2010 To31.01.2010	Complainant’s first written complaint to Minjur police station and Case study Report.	Xerox
Ex.A3	01.02.2010	Complainant’s 2nd written complaint and copy of FIR.	Xerox
Ex.A4	……………	Photo copies.	Xerox
Ex.A5	12.02.2010	Complainant’s intimation letter to the opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A6	26.02.2009	Copy of insurance policy	Xerox
Ex.A7	26.02.2010	Copy the letter of the surveyor of opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A8	08.03.2010	Copy of revised/estimated of licensed civil engineer Perambur, Chennai.	Xerox
Ex.A9	18.03.2010	Letter given by VAO, Nandhiyambakkam.	Xerox
Ex.A10	08.04.2010	Copy of insurance claim application with claim document to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A11	12.04.2010	Copy of complainant’s letter to the surveyor and loss  assessor, EB card Xerox and Ex bill and complaint letter to JE.	Xerox
Ex.A12	12.05.2010	Reply letter of the opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A13	………………	Previous polices of opposite party for the year 2007, 2008 and 2009.	Xerox
Ex.A14	30.08.2010	Intimation letter given by Tamil Nadu Fire and rescue service.	Xerox
Ex.A15	08.09.2010	Fire certificate given by the Tamil Nadu Fire and rescue services department.	Xerox
Ex.A16	08.11.2010	Legal notice of the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A17	02.12.2010	2nd legal notice of the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A18	13.01.2011	Opposite party legal notice	Xerox
Ex.A19	…………..	copy of the ground floor plan of the residential house.	Xerox
Ex.A20	………………	Medical reports	Xerox
Ex.A21	16.06.2010	Temporary residential address proof	Xerox
Ex.A22	05.10.2010	Current year 2010 land tax bill.	Xerox
Ex.A23	02.11.2010	Election commission ID card	Xerox
Ex.A24	11.11.1991	ID ‘s (1) issued by Government of TN (Secretariat) (2) Bar counsel of TN R.No.MS.863/2003. (3)M.H.A.A.Si No.R.867 (4) M.H.A.A. Enrol.No.863/2003	Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the  opposite parties:-

Ex.B1	01.03.2009	Copy of fire insurance policy with terms and conditions.	Xerox
Ex.B2	12.02.2010	Copy of claim form submitted by the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B3	19.04.2010	Copy of survey report of Mr.M.S. Dakshinamurthy.	Xerox
Ex.B4	…………….	Copy of photos of affected premises taken by surveyor.	Xerox
Ex.B5	12.05.2010	Copy of letter from opposite party to complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B6	13.01.2011	Copy of letter from counsel of opposite party to complainant.	Xerox

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT