BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 26th day of October, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 22/2016
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
No.179, Easwaran Koil Street,
Puducherry. ………. Appellant
Vs.
Yodha Prabu Thomas,
S/o Baskaran Thomas,
No.143, Thai Sei Nalathurai Viduthi,
Lingareddipalayam,
Katterikuppam Post, Puducherry. ………… Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.54/2008, dt.22.12.2015 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.54/2008
Yodha Prabu Thomas,
S/o Baskaran Thomas,
No.143, Thai Sei Nalathurai Viduthi,
Lingareddipalayam,
Katterikuppam Post, Puducherry. ………… Respondent
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
No.179, Easwaran Koil Street,
Puducherry. ………. Appellant
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru B.Mohandoss,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
TvlJ.Senthamizh Nambi & A.Arul,
Advocates, Puducherry.
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 22.12.2015 made in C.C.54/2008.
2. The Opposite Party before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the complainant therein is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the complaint before the District Forum is that it has entered into an agreement with M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Limited, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District for growing chicks supplied by the said company. As per the terms, the complainant has to construct a shed on his own. Accordingly, the complainant constructed the poultry farm by spending Rs. 3,42,784/- at Pattanur Village, Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk and insured the poultry farm with the opposite party on 16.05.2006 for Rs.3,22,500/-. On 16.09.2006, the said poultry farm completely gutted in a fire accident and the same was intimated to the opposite party and further it has claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,42,784/- from the opposite party. However, the opposite party has settled only a sum of Rs.30,500/-. Therefore, the complainant sent a letter claiming compensation. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the opposite party claiming the said amount. Since it has not been honoured, the complainant filed the complaint before District Forum.
5. The opposite party has filed the reply version, which. In nutshell, is stated hereunder.
All the allegations made in the complaint are denied. There was a belated intimation about the accident. The surveyor has assessed the damage at Rs.61,149.80. At the time of obtaining the policy in the proposal form, the complainant has given the location as No.143, Thaai Seai Nallathurai, Lingareddipalayam, Katterikuppam, Puducherry and the same was mentioned in the policy for coverage of risk relating to the property of the complainant. In the claim form, the complainant has given a different location i.e. Pattanur Village, Thiruchitrambalam, Villupuram District. As per the condition No.1 under general conditions of Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy obtained by the complainant, the policy shall be voidable in the event of mis-representation, mis-description, or non-disclosure of any material particular and also incomplete construction of the shed. It is improbable that short-circuit must have occurred in the property covered by insurance. As per the information furnished by the Electricity Board, electricity connection was disconnected even in the month of June, 2016. The surveyor's report reveal that after the fire occurrence, there was very little burnt ash of thatches only provided at the occurrence and there was no thatches provided in the unburnt area. Therefore, taking a humanitarian view, the amount has been settled. However, the complainant has not received the said amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Thus, the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Before the District Forum, the complainant examined himself as CW1 apart from Examining CWs 2 and 3 on his side and marked Exs.C1 to C17on his side. The Opposite Party examined its Assistant Manager Mr.S.Ramachandran as RW1 and its surveyor as RW2 and marked Ex.R1 to R10 on its side.
7. The District Forum framed the following three points for determination:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled any relief?
8. On the first point whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer. We are entirely in agreement with the finding of the District Forum. The complainant has insured his poultry farm with the opposite party and hence there is contractual relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is perfectly maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. This point is answered in favour of the complainant.
9. On the second point, the District Forum found that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation towards loss and damage for the poultry farm gutted in the accident. It is not in dispute that the poultry farm of the complainant was gutted in the fire accident. But, it is a case of the opposite party that the loss that could have been suffered by the complainant is only to the tune of Rs. 30,500/-, as against the claim of Rs. 3,42,784/- made by the complainant. Ex.C1, dt.03.02.2006 is the copy of receipt for construction of shed, Ex.C2, dt.22.02.2006 is the copy of receipt for payment for construction of shed, Ex.C3, dt. 23.02.2006 is the photo copy of receipt for purchase of cement, Ex.C4, even dated is the photo copy of receipt for purchase of building materials, Ex.C5, dt.04.03.2006 is the photo copy of receipt for purchase of electrical items and Ex.C6, dt.15.03.2006 is photo copy for purchase of auto feed, etc. These documents establish that the complainant has spend considerable amount for the construction of poultry farm. The opposite party could not dispute the amount that has been spent by the complainant for putting up the poultry farm. Further, the opposite party has not established with some acceptable documents that the complainant would have spent only lesser amount for putting up the poultry farm.
10. It is the case of the opposite party that the place of business mentioned in the policy differs from the place of business mentioned in the claim form Ex.C12 produced by the complainant. However, we are able to see that the opposite party as admitted the claim of the complainant and offered a sum of Rs.30,500/- without taking into account that the place of business differs. Furthermore, the opposite party had issued the policy, Ex.C7 to the complainant only after inspecting the poultry farm. In the bottom of Ex.R1, it reads that "I inspected on 16.05.2006 and found in good condition". Therefore, the ground taken by the opposite party in this regard is liable to be rejected.
11. The District Forum found that on the perusal of surveyor's report, it could be seen that damage caused to the drinker/feeder/dish/mesh was not calculated in the loss of assessment. It has also been found by the District Form that since damage has occurred within four months from the date of commencement depreciation charged at the rate of 10% p.a. by the surveyor as the loss assessed is not valid. Absolutely, there is no reason to disagree with the said finding of the District forum on the surveyor's report. The surveyor's report alone cannot be considered as final and binding on the parties, which was so also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.Pradeep Kumar" (reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 787.
12. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount offered by the opposite party to the complainant is very meager comparing to the loss suffered by the complainant. However, we cannot take into account that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 3,42,784/-, being the amount said to have been spent by him for putting up the poultry farm. The same view was taken by the District Forum while awarding the amount towards loss and damage to the poultry farm of the complainant. The District Forum has rightly awarded Rs.1,50,000/- which is, in our view, does not require our interference. Further, the District Forum has awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant, which in our opinion, is the reasonable amount of compensation. Further, the District Forum has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards cost which is also just and reasonable.
13. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. No cost. The order of the District Forum, dated 22.12.2015 made in C.C.54/2008 is confirmed.
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
