AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT
Mr. V. Sambasivarao, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 26-06-2013, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consume Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in CC No.91 of 2011, whereby the Complaint filed by the Appellant has been partly allowed directing the Respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.29,33,779/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
It is not in dispute that on 02-10-2009 till 03-10-2009, Kurnool and its surrounding areas were affected by unprecedented floods, as a result of breach of Tungabadra and Hundri rivers. Most of the areas of Kurnool including the Complainant's showroom and godown were inundated with flood waters. The stocks of television, refrigerators, mobile phones, etc., kept at the showroom and the godown submerged in flood waters and damaged completely. The Appellant lodged a claim with the Respondent for Rs.8,99,591/- for the damage caused to the stock kept in showroom and another claim of Rs.30,37,682/- for the loss caused to the stock kept in the godown, thus, a total claim of Rs.39,37,278/- was made towards loss of stocks and Rs.5,47,951/- towards past rent and security charges till 01-07-2011 as well as for future monthly rent and security charges, at the rate of Rs.16,500/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, with interest thereon.
The Complaint was filed on or after 22-07-2011 before the State Commission. It is also not in dispute that the Surveyor had visited the site on 23-07-2010 and sought certain information. From the letter dated 03-12-2011 by which the Surveyor had submitted his report, we find that correspondence were exchanged between the Appellant, the Surveyor and Insurance Company from 28-11-2009 till 07-10-2011, wherein certain information was asked for and the reply was given by the Appellant. The State Commission, by the impugned order, had gone into the entire matter and has held that the Appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.29,23,779/- towards compensation under the two policies. It may be mentioned here that the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission is not in dispute. The only plea raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that interest should have been awarded from the date of making the claim and not from the date of filing of Complaint and, further, the Appellant is also entitled for rent and security charges for keeping the damaged stock in its godown.
So far as the question of payment of rent is concerned from the date of filing of the claim, we may mention here that, as per the survey report, we find that the surveyor was in constant touch with the Appellant and asked for various information right from 28-11-2009 to 07-10-2011 and, therefore, neither the Insurance Company nor the Surveyor can be blamed in assessing the loss or submitting the Survey Report. In this background, if the State Commission has awarded interest from the date of filing of the Complaint, it cannot be faulted with.
So far as the claim of rent for keeping the damaged stock in its godown as also the security charges is concerned, we may mention here that the State Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the Appellant was advised to shift the stock to Sri Raghavendra Oil Mills, Bellary Road, Kurnool and instead of shifting the damaged stock to that place, the Appellant shifted the stock at its own godown at Bellary Road, Kurnool. That being the position, the Appellant is not entitled for rent for its own godown or security charges.
We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. The First Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.