(By Hon’ble Justice Thiru.R.Pongiappan)

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the opposite party for the following relief:

(1) Directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.29,78,100/- as per insurance claim, (or)

In the alternative directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the total premium amount covered under the Insurance Policy No.501500/11/11/3100000312 of the opposite party

(2) Directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and for mental agony suffered by the complainant.

(3) To award cost of Rs.25,000/- for this proceedings.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a partner in M/s.Hexell Plastik Peripherals Company engaged in the manufacture of plastic injection molded auto components and crates. All the machines used for the manufacture of the above mentioned components and crates were covered under the Insurance Policy No. 501500/11/11/3100000312 for the period from 19.10.2011 to 18.10.2012 issued by the opposite party. On 30.12.2011, there was a cyclone by name Thane in Pondicherry, due to which some of the machines were damaged. Immediately, the complainant informed the opposite party about the damages through letter dated 31.12.2011. On receipt of intimation, the opposite party has deputed one Mr.Swaminathan of M/s.Crystal Sureyors, Pondicherry to assess the damage. After a time span of 50 days, the surveyor appointed by the opposite party asked the complainant to prepare detailed asset register. On the other hand, all the relevant documents were made available to the opposite party. Later, on 25.06.2012 without showing the Surveyor’s report, the opposite party sent a repudiation order in Ref.No.501500/Fire Claims/CB:br/2012.

3. In fact, Thane cyclone opened up roof top in some portions and rain water entered into the premises through opened up roof. To avoid any possible damage on account of wrong handling of the machines the services of the professional M/s.Amutronix Auotmation, Pondicherry, was called to re-start the machine and assess the damage, if any, and to provide quotation for repairing the damaged machines. Later, after assessing the damage, the claim form was filed alongwith the quotation of M/s.Amutronix Automation, Pondicherry on 12.01.2012. The opposite party surveyor asked the complainant to get quotation from the original manufacturer and also from the supplier of machines. At the request of the opposite party through the letter dated 21.02.2012, valuation report dated 26.03.2012 issued by Dr.R.Natarajan & Associates was also given to them.

4. The opposite party office appointed Mr.A.Cyril Peter, Surveyor to carry out pre-acceptance inspection and Mr.A.Cyril Peter, after inspecting the machines submitted his report No.ACP/010/2011-12 dated 07.10.2011. Further it is understood that the detailed surveyor report was prepared on 28.05.2012 and the surveyor has not mentioned about the discrepancy alleged to be found in the machines. However, the opposite party repudiate the claim by order No.501500/Fire Claims/CB.br/2012 dated 25.06.2012 ignoring the proximate cause of the damage without taking expert opinion and without sharing the final report dated 25.08.2012 of the surveyor. In the appeal before the Deputy General Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai on 30.08.2012, the complainant asked the appellate authority to direct the Divisional Officer to furnish the copy of the final surveyor report dated 28.05.2012 as per the stipulation in the IRDA, (Protection of Policy Holders Interests) Regulations, 2002. Further, she requested to process and settles the claim without any further delay. In a letter dated 26.12.2012 written to Mr.Amitabha Bhattacharyya, Grievance Redressal officer, of the Opposite party company, the complainant stressed about the result of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and also to advice Divisional Office to furnish a copy of survey report and also the proof of delivery of the letter dated 11.05.2012. Till date, the complainant has not been furnished with the result of the appellate authority. Ultimately, the complainant has sent a letter in HO:CRMD:CNRO:2012-2013 to the opposite party with a request to review the repudiated claim made by the opposite party and the same was replied by the opposite party vide reply dated 22.01.2013. In the reply notice dated 21.10.2013, it has been stated by the opposite party that as per clause 6(ii) of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy to the complainant, the insurance company shall disclaim liability for any claim under and such shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of the disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned. The act committed by the opposite party comes under unfair trade practice and therefore, the complaint is before this Commission.

Refuting the complaint version, the opposite party has filed the reply version with the following allegations:

5. The complainant informed about the alleged damages only on 03.01.2012. In otherwise, it would not necessary to enclose the survey report with repudiation order. The complainant had submitted the insurance claim in the prescribed format with enclosures on 12.01.2012 only. Later, the survey report dated 28.05.2012 was served to the opposite parties on 29.05.2012 and hence, the repudiation was well within time. The opposite party denies that they had not given consent beyond 30 days. A lot of time and energy has been spent by the surveyor to find some way or other to get the complainant's claim disallowed. Upon inspection by the Surveyor immediately after intimation of claim by the complainant it was understood that the complainant has insured used second hand imported/indigenous Machinery under plant and machinery. The complainant took a Fire policy in respect of the above for a sum insured of Rs.1,13,00,000/- in respect of plant and machinery without furnishing the break details. Hence the surveyor at the time of loss in order to confirm coverage and adequacy of sum insured requested M/s.Hexell Plastik Manufacturer to submit the quotation and bills from the original Equipment Manufacturer Supplier. In this regard, the complainant expressed their inability to obtain the quotes from the OEM. Pre-acceptance inspection carried out by Mr.A.Cyril Peter for the purpose of acceptance of the risk for issuance of Fire Policy pertaining to plastic goods and manufacturing unit and scope of the report is limited to the fire safety standards adopted by the complainant and is not connected to the examination or inspection of the plant and machinery installed in the factory.

6. The complainant had issued a legal notice dated 21.08.2013 to the opposite party only on 10.09.2013. In the said notice, the complainant had asked the opposite party to furnish the survey report and had asked for proof of delivery of letter. It also asked about the appeal filed by the complainant before the appellate authority. It had also asked to settle the claim as per the quotations issued by Amutronix Automation, Puducherry. For the said notice, a suitable reply dated 21.10.2013 was sent by the opposite party alongwith the copy of the surveyor's report dated 28.05.2012. As far as the demand to settle the claim of the complainant as per the quotation issued by Amutronix Automation, Puducherry, the opposite party had stated that the same cannot be considered as per the terms of insurance policy. The complainant issued a second legal notice on 11.12.2013 stating that by oversight, certain incidents and facts with respect to policy No.501500/11/11/3100000177 issued on behalf of M/s.Klas got mixed up with the complainant's earlier notice dated 21.08.2013. In this regard, the opposite party had given suitable reply on 21.10.2013 to the complainant.

7. As per Section 6(ii) of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy to the complainant, the insurance company shall disclaim liability for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months. Here it is a case, the complainant had informed about the alleged damages on 03.01.2012 and after getting information, the opposite party appointed the surveyor M/s.Crystal Surveyors, who is one of the IRDA licensed independent surveyors practicing in Puducherry. Later, Mr.Swaminathan of M/s.Crystal Surveyors visited the premises on 05.01.2012 to assess the damages. During such time, the complainant has not provided all the information. Only on 23.01.2012 the complainant had issued Claim Form dated 12.01.2012 with a test report issued by M/s.Amutronix Automation dated 11.01.2012. Infact, the opposite party did not ask for test report from anybody. Surveyor could not ascertain the cause of the short circuit only due to the delay in submission of documents and details from the complainant. As a standard practice, the surveyor had on 23.03.2012 issued 'Immediate Loss advice', in which he had claim that the cause of failure was yet to be determined. The surveyor could not ascertain the cause of the short circuit only due to the delay in submission of documents by the complainant. On 23.032012, the surveyor issued an Immediate Loss Advice in which he had claimed that the cause of failure was yet to be determined. The surveyor could not ascertain the cause of the short circuit. On 11.05.2012 the opposite party had issued letter to the complainant asking for correspondence with the repairers of the complainant and also the log book the date of installation of machines till the damage. Though the said letter was served on the complainant on 22.05.2012 the complainant had not issued any reply. On 28.05.2012 the surveyor submitted his report and he clearly mentioned that the machines was old/used and had high risk of breakdown. In the said report, the surveryor had clearly mentioned that on his physical inspection of the injection moulding machine controlling PCB installed inside the control panels, he found no physical damages and had advised the complainant to call the surveyor for joint inspection of the damages with service engineer. Further, the surveyor mentioned in his report that quotation given by M/s.Amutronics Automation dated 11.01.2012 was for upgradation and for replacement or repair. The surveyor was unable to conclude that spares were not available and he had not recommended for replacement of PCB cards.

8. Only as per the report given by the surveyor, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 25.06.2012 as the damages were caused by short circuit. Report dated 26.03.2012 given by Dr.R.Natarajan and Associates is not survey report and the said Natarajan is also not IRDA Licensed Surveyor. In the Grievance Cell, for the alleged complaint lodged by the complainant, proper explanation was given to the complainant. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant only based on the terms and conditions of the policy.

9. Now upon allegation and defense the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the insurance claim as alleged?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the compensation from the opposite party?
5. To what other relief.

10. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the complainant, only one witness was examined as CW.1 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.C1 to C22. On the side of the opposite party, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R13 marked.

Issue No.1:

11. The complainant is the manufacturing unit running in the name and style of M/s.Hexell Plastik Peripherals and the said unit is engaged in the manufacture of plastic injection moulded auto components and crates. All the machines used in the said company was insured with the opposite party for the period from 19.10.2011 to 18.10.0212 in Policy No.501500/11/11/3100000312. In view of the policy condition, the complainant is the beneficiary. In this occasion, our Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Corporation and others, in its order dated 06.02.2020, held that the beneficiary of policy taken out by the insured also consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, here also the complainant company is the beneficiary under insurance policy, comes within the definition of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, Issue No.1 is answered affirmatively in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2:

12. Admittedly, there was a cyclone by name "Thane" in Pondicherry and due to which a portion of Pondicherry got damaged on 30.12.2011. In this occasion, it is the case of the complainant that injection moulding machines – 110T, 150T, 200T, 300T, 350T, 500T and 720T got damaged and the same was intimated to the opposite party vide letter dated 31.12.2011. In this regard, there is no denial on the side of the opposite party. Further, after filing the claim form and after receiving the survey report, the opposite party by letter dated 25.06.2012 (Ex.C12) disallowed the claim made by the complainant and sent the repudiation letter by stating that:
"entry of moisture into the control panel in the Thane cyclonic wind/rain, the same could not have caused failure unless connected to power. Without precautionary steps, connection to power supply will cause breakdown i.e. entry of foreign body like moisture and resulted failure comes under Electrical break down"

(A)General Exclusion no.7 in the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy covering the said property, states as follows:
"Loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture, or fitting arising from or occasioned by over-running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning included) provided that this exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fittings which may be destroyed."

Only, thereafter, the complainant is before this Commission with the present complaint.

13. The first and foremost contention raised by the counsel appearing for the opposite party is that the complainant herein has approached this Commission belatedly after violating the condition in clause 6(ii) of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy

14. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that though the complainant has given necessary documents as required by the opposite party, copy of surveyor report has not been given to the complainant inspite of repeated demands made by him. Finally, vide reply notice dated 21.10.2013 (Ex.C19), surveyor report dated 26.05.2012 (Ex.C22) was sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 27.12.2013 and therefore, it can be presumed that the complaint is filed within time and not bared by condition in clause 6(ii) of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy.

15. Now, before considering the other averments, it would relevant to see condition in clause 6(ii) of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy, which reads as follows:

In no case whatsoever shall the company be liable for any loss or damage after the expiry of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage unless the claim is subject of pending action or arbitration, it being expressly agreed and declared that if the company shall disclaim liability for any claim hereunder and such claim not within 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder.

16. So, in view of the above said provision it would necessary for the complainant to file the claim within the period of 12 months from date of loss. But, here, it is a case, the alleged occurrence had happened on 30.12.2011, later the present complaint has been filed before this Commission only on 27.12.2013, after lapse of 12 months. In otherwise, it is not in dispute that the complainant presented the claim form before the opposite party on 12.01.2012, wherein he claimed Rs.1,13,00,000/-. Therefore, the claim form was submitted before the opposite party within two months from the date of occurrence. In this occasion, it would necessary to see the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2017 (3) CTC 826 – National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., and National Insurance co. Ltd., wherein in para no.18, our Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

In our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the Courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer, who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficient legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim. That being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in this regard.

17. Therefore, applying the principle set out in the above referred judgment, it would necessary to violate the period of limitation to settle this type of issues. Moreover, it is the contention raised by the complainant that Fire Survey Report dated 28.05.2012 (Ex.C22) has been served alongwith reply to the complainant only on 28.01.2013(Ex.C19). Therefore the opposite party also held responsible for the delay occurred. Further, as per Section 24(a) of Consumer Protection Act, it would necessary to file the complaint within 2 years from the date of occurrence. Here, it is a case, occurrence had happened on 30.12.2011 and the present complaint has been filed before this Commission on 27.12.2013. Therefore, the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation under section 24(a) of Consumer Protection Act.

18. Accordingly, in the light of decision cited supra, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the opposite party that the claim has not been made within the stipulated period cannot be accepted.

19. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that though the complainant has produced the necessary documents to show that the damages was only due to cyclone, the opposite party after believing the defective survey report submitted by the surveyor, repudiated the claim made by the complainant, which is erroneous.

20. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party would contend that for the present occurrence, the complainant gave the information belatedly on 03.01.2012 vide letter dated 31.12.2011(Ex.R1). Later, after appointment of surveyor, the complainant has not provided sufficient documents to find out the cost of the machines and also without giving intimation, the complainant attempted to run the machines which resulted in short circuit. Further, without reviewing the moisture found in the electrical board, the complainant attempted to start the machines and only due to the negligence committed by the complainant the electrical break down had happened and therefore under Exclusion 7 of the General Conditions of Standard Fire & Perils Policy, the opposite party has power to disallow the claim made by the complainant.

21. Now, on considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side with relevant records, it is not in dispute that the machines got damaged were all insured with the opposite party for the period from 19.10.2011 to 18.10.2012.

22. In this regard, one Thiru.A.Cyril Peter, surveyor, as regard to machineries found in the company, on 07.10.2011, visited the premises and sent the pre-acceptance inspection report, wherein he gave positive recommendation for the damaged machines also. Only after accepting the said pre-acceptance inspection report, the opposite party issued insurance policy and therefore, it cannot be said that the machines found in the premises are all second hand and therefore, estimation cannot be done. Though the complainant has not produced relevant document, it is for the opposite party to estimate damage after appointing qualified surveyor. In a similar situation, in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M/s.Garg Motors – 2016(3) CPR 536(NC), our National Commission has held as follows:

The District Forum had rightly held that when the complainant was able to prove the purchase value of the stocks, it was not justified on the part of the insurance company to refuse its value on the assumption that certain stocks were old and slow moving. Moreover, the surveyor had not taken any valuation report from the market as pr the price list and manufacturer.

23. Applying the said principle set out in the above judgment in this case, though the machines got damaged are second hand one, it would necessary for the surveyor to ascertain the value of the machines with the manufacturer of the machines. Further, it would be necessary that the surveyor who appointed to estimate the damages is to be an engineer by qualification. In this regard, though the surveyor was appointed by the insurance company is an engineer by profession but he is not a registered engineer for estimating the damage. So, in this aspect also, the plea raised by the opposite party that the complainant has not provided any sufficient documents to ascertain the value of damage is not a ground for disbelieving the case of the complaint.

24. Now, in the present case, only due to the reason that there was a short circuit, the machines got damaged and therefore the complainant is not entitled to receive the compensation. Further, as per General Exclusion 7, the opposite party is entitled to disallow the claim. In this occasion, here it is a case, while at the time of giving evidence by surveyor (RW.2) in his affidavit, in para 17, he has stated that while at the time inspecting the machines, there is no physical damages to the machines. Therefore, after admitting the fact that there was no physical damage to the machines concerned, now, he turned and filed the report that due to moisture there was a short circuit in the machines. Before this Commission, as regards to the damages, on 23.01.2012 itself vide Ex.R7, Crystal Surveyor had given Immediate Loss Advice, wherein he has stated that cause of loss is due to Thane Cyclone blowing of shed and rain water entered into factory and resulted damages to the Controller of Plant and Machineries, though he has stated in his report that cause of failure is yet to be determined. On considering the circumstances that everything is happened due to storm and cyclone, it cannot be said that only due to negligence of the complainant machines got damage.

25. Further, before this Commission, the Fire Survey Report (preliminary) dated 24.01.2012 was marked as Ex.R8 and in the said report also, the cause of loss was mentioned as Cyclonic Wind and Rain. More than that, the surveyor Swaminathan, who was appointed by the opposite party, while at the time of giving evidence as RW.2, in his evidence he has stated that proximity for cause of damage is said to be cyclonic. The said evidence given by the surveyor categorically proves only on the impact of cyclone, machines got damage and therefore, we are of the firm opinion that sending repudiation letter to the complainant by the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service and therefore, Issue No.2 is answered affirmatively in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.3:

26. After receiving the report, the opposite party has sent a repudiation letter to the complainant as the claim is not allowable. In fact, in the present case, there is no direct cause of loss. Only due to effect of cyclone everything had happened. All are aware while at the said time, the entire power supply got damage for the period of more than a week in Pondicherry and as a result, the alleged occurrence had happened, for which it cannot be said the machines got damage only due to the act of the complainant. In such a circumstances, it would not possible for the complainant to intimate the same immediately to the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the opinion that disallowing the claim made by the complainant is purely erroneous in law and therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the compensation from the opposite party.

27. As regards to the quantum of compensation, in the present case, though the compliant has been filed saying that 7 machines are got damages, at the time of giving evidence as CW.1, the complainant agreed that only three machines were damaged. Further, on the side of the complainant, quotation for repairing machines which got damages was issued by Amutronix Automation was produced as Exs.C5, C6 and C7. Now, on going through the said quotations, Amutronix Automation offered to rectify and repair the machines for Rs.29,73,800/-. In respect of the quotation issued by M/s.Amutronix Automation, opposite party had contended that the quotation issued only for upgradation and not for repair. So, the opposite party refused to accept the quotation given by M/s.Amutronix Automation. In otherwise, on the side of the complainant, Valuation report issued by Dr.R.Natarajan & Associates is marked as Ex.C11, wherein the cost of the machines was assessed as Rs.1,20,76,000/-. In this occasion, based on the report, we cannot ascertain damages caused to the machines to the complainant.

28. Here, it is a case, the surveyor appointed by the opposite party has not given any report as regard to the value of damages. Further, the opposite party has not accepted the quotation given by M/s.Amutronix Automation. In the said circumstances, we are unable to assess the real value of damage caused to the complainant’s company and therefore, it would appropriate to pass award to direct the opposite party to return the total premium amount covered under the insurance policy no.501500/11/11/3100000312 of the opposite party. Accordingly, we are decided to issue directions. Issue no.3 is decided accordingly.

Issue No.4:

29. Admittedly after filing the claim form, the same has not been properly dealt with by the opposite party. Though the machines got damage due to cyclone, it is the duty of the opposite party to ascertain damage and to pay the loss to the complainant immediately. But, here it is a case, the stand taken by the opposite party would prove the fact that they disallowed the claim made by the complainant and also committed deficiency of service. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Further, the complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.5:

30. In view of the findings in issue nos.1 to 4, the complainant is not entitled to any other relief.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is hereby directed to return the premium amount covered for three defective machines under the insurance policy no.501500/11/11/3100000312 to the complainant. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Further, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs.

Dated this the 15th day of September 2022.

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:

CW.1    16.10.2014     A. Srikanth

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESSES:

RW.1 04.02.2016 P.K.Muralikrishna
RW.2 16.04.2021 S.Saminathan

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

Ex.C1   28.10.2011   Photocopy of Insurance policy No.501500/11/11/3100000312 for the period from 19.10.2011 to 18.10.2012.
Ex.C2    –                  Copy of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the opposite party.
Ex.C3   14.11.2011    Letter issued by the opposite party alongwith pre-acceptance Inspection Report issued by Mr.A.Cyril Peter, the Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor/Valuer with photos.
Ex.C4   31.12.2011    Letter of intimation and appointment of surveyor for the Thane Cyclone damages given by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.C5   07.01.2012   Quotation for CM-500 T M/C PLC Retrofitment given by the Amutronix Automation to the complainant.
Ex.C6   07.01.2012   Quotation for TOYO-150 T M/C PLC Retrofitment given by the Amutronix Automation to the complainant.
Ex.C7   07.01.2012   Quotation for TOSHIBA T M/C PLC Retrofitment given by the Amutronix Automation to the complainant.
Ex.C8   11.01.2012    Test Report given by Amutronix Automation products for CM-500T, TOYO-150 T and TOSHIBA T.
Ex.C9   12.01.2012    Cyclone Claim Form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.C10  21.01.2012   Letter sent to the complainant by the Crystal surveyors.
Ex.C11  26.03.2012   Valuation report issued by Dr.R.Natarajan & Associates, Chennai, Chartered Engineer and Government Registerd valuer.
Ex.C12  25.06.2012   Reply letter given by the opposite party to the complainant for his claim under Fire Policy No.501500/11/11/3100000312.
Ex.C13  30.08.2012   Photocopy of the letter about the insurance claim sent by the complainant to the Deputy General Manager.
Ex,C14   –                  Copy of the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.
Ex.C15   26.12.2012  Photocopy of the letter sent by the complainant to Mr.Amitabha Bhattacharya, Grievance Redressal officer, alongwith postal receipt.
Ex.C16   22.01.2012   Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant with respect to request made by the complainant to review the repudiated claim and early settlement of claim.
Ex.C17   21.08.2013   Lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party alongwith postal receipt.
Ex.C18   11.09.2013   Acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.
Ex.C19   21.10.2013   Reply notice given by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.C20   11.12.2013   Rejoinder notice given by the complainant to the opposite party alongwith postal receipt.
Ex.C21   16.12.2013   Acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.
Ex.C22   28.05.2012   Fire Survey Report.

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY’s EXHIBITS MARKED THROUGH CROSS EXAMINATION OF CW.1:

Ex.R1     12.01.2012    Cyclone Claim Form, marked through cross examination of CW.1.

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY’s EXHIBITS

Ex.R2     31.12.2011    Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 03.01.2012.
Ex.R3     10.09.2013    The postal cover in which the legal notice dated 21.08.2013 was issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.R4     15.12.2013    The postal cover in which the legal notice dated 11.12.2013 was issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.R5     17.01.2014    Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party to the counsel of the complainant.
Ex.R6     18.01.2014    The postal acknowledgement card signed by the complainant.
Ex.R7     23.01.2012    The immediate loss advice issued by the Surveyor to the opposite party.
Ex.R8     24.01.2012    Copy of the Fire Survey Report (Preliminary) issued by the surveyor to the opposite party.
Ex.R9     23.03.2012    The Immediate Loss Advice issued by the Surveyor to the opposite party.
Ex.R10   11.05.2012    The copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.R11    28.05.2012    The letter issued by the Opposite party to the Post Master General, Puducherry.
Ex.R12    31.05.2012    The letter issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post, Puducherry to the opposite party.
Ex.R13    21.03.2013     The copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to its Regional Manager, Chennai.