AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CASE under Section 17(a)(1) of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the State Commissioner will be pleased to direct the respondents herein to settle our insurance claims as per the Joint Policy No. B. No. 283231 dated. 18.5.1986 and direct the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty thousand only) @ Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees twentyeight thousand only) to each of the petitioner by declaring the action of the respondent in non payment of the insured amount is arbitrary illegal. It is also prayed that this Hon''ble Commission may be pleased to award interest and damages as this Hon''ble Commission deems fit and proper for the inordinate delay caused by the respondents herein in settling our claims and allow this CD by awarding costs.
THIS case coming on for hearing upon perusing the affidavit filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Radhakrishna Murthy, Advocate for the complainants and of Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondents. The State Commission made the following Order : -
There are thirty (30) complainants in Consumer Dispute. The averments in the complaint briefly stated are that the complaint is being field on behalf of all the 30 complainants and that all of them belong to poor Harijan Community. They borrowed loans from the State Bank of India, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and also raised other amounts and set up brick industry at Ganiatkur village, Kanchikacherla Mandal by taking AC. 11-00 of land on lease basis from M/s. Sriram Field Cooperative Society. According to them, they started manufacturing bricks in the year 1984, and selling the same from that time onwards. In the year 1987, they borrowed some amount from the State Bank of India and started manufacturing the bricks in the month of April. They have insured the brick industry jointly with the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 9,60,000.00 under a joint policy/cover Note B.No. 283239dated 22.6.1987 with a coverage of Rs. 32,000.00 per each unit. According to them, after the wet bricks were made, approximately one lakh per each complainant, and before actually going through the heating process, there was cyclone as a result of depression in the Bay of Bengal and the entire Krishna District suffered with heavy rains and as a result they have suffered loss. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,000.00 per each of the complainant from the Insurance Company. According to them, the cost for manufacturing of one lakh of bricks, would be about Rs. 32,000.00 consisting of clay for Rs. 13,000.00 husk Rs. 5,000.00, blocks-Rs. 2,000.00, labour charges-Rs. 8,000.00; coal Rs. 4,000.00. It is submitted in the complaint, so far as the coal is concerned, they have not used, as it is not reached the stage of heating. Thereafter, after deducting Rs. 4,000/- towards the value of the coal, they confined their claim to Rs. 28,000.00 per each complainant. They also claimed for interest and damages and compensation, for inordinate delay in settling the claim.
A surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and he visited the village on 15.9.1987 and inspected the damage. In his report, regarding valuation for one lakh bricks, he stated that the cost will be Rs. 18,100.00 for semi-finished bricks. According to him, the coal powder will cost to the tune of Rs. 3,600.00, clay Rs. 3,000.00; husk-Rs. 4,500.00; mixing of clay and coal powder Rs. 2,000.00; cost of labour for preparing wet bricks Rs. 5,000. Out of the said amount; he deducted the cost of mud, that is, Rs. 3,000.00, which according to him, was there lying at the site where the bricks were arranged, even after the cyclone, on the date of inspection and cost of labour to the tune of Rs. 3,000.00 totalling in all Rs. 6,000.00. He, therefore, submitted a report to the effect that the loss payable fo each of the member was Rs. 12,100.00. No oral evidence was adduced, but they have filed the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 15.12.1987 and 21.12.1989 saying that there was cyclone ii. the months of October, 1987, that is, 15th to 17th October and 11th and 12th November, 1987. Another certificate was issued on 21.12.1989 stating that the bricks in the year 1987 manufactured by the complainants were insured and the bricks were damaged due to heavy rains occurred on 13.8.1989, 14.8.1987 and 15.8.1987 and he certified the rain fall on 13th, 14th and 15th August, 1987. He also filed papers relating to the granting of loans. Relying on these documents, it is contended that there was a cyclone and that the wet bricks were washed away during the cyclone. He also filed another set of papers at the time of hearing of the case evidencing the amount said to have been paid by each of the complainants towards preparation of the blocks and purchase of earth and payment of labour charges etc. But all these documents are cyclostyled copies and they bear the same date. Evidently, they were not filed along with the complaint, although the receipts bear the date as 2.7.1987. There is no justification for not filing these documents alongwith the complaint and no reasons are given. Since the documents are cyclostyled documents and the figures mentioned also are the same in the documents with regard to the each of the complainant, we are not prepared to place any reliance on them.
NO evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite party. Thus, from the evidence on record, the version of the complainant, that there was cyclone in sometime August, 1987 and that at that time, they have arranged wet bricks for heating and before they could be heated, they were drenched and mud melted in the cyclone, has to be accepted. Such a cyclone occurred and the wet bricks were washed away, was also supported by the report of the surveyor. According to the surveyor, he inspected the village on 15.8.1987, that is, within a month after the cyclone and he found some mud and earth there. Therefore, the version that there was a cyclone and there were wet bricks and there was also some earth left, on account of the cyclone, is supported by the report of the surveyor and hence the case of the complainant has to be accepted. With regard to the quantum of damages claimed, since we are not inclined to place reliance on the papers filed at the time of the hearing of the case, the only other material left on record is the surveyor''s report estimating the valuation for preparation of one lakh bricks. According to the surveyor, it is valued at Rs. 18,100.00, which we consider in the circumstances, to be reasonable and proper. But it is submitted by the Counsel for the complainant that the surveyor is not justified in making the deduction of Rs. 6,000.00 out of the figures of Rs. 18,100.00 arrived at towards the cost of mud and cost of labour. In the report, it was mentioned that there was some mud left after the cyclone and the same can be used once again for preparation of bricks. The surveyor estimated the value of the mud at Rs. 3,000.00 and deducted the same. In the absence of any evidence that the said mud cannot be used for preparing the bricks, we are inclined to accept the surveyor''s report, for deduction of Rs. 3,000.00 towards the cost of mud. So far as the deduction of the amount for labour at Rs. 3,000.00, we are not inclined to accept the surveyor''s report in that regard for the reason even if the labour was contributed by the complainants themselves, they a re entitled for the same being included in the cost of manufacture of bricks and the same cannot be deducted from the cost of the manufacture of one lakh bricks. In these circumstances, we hold that the cost of preparation of one lakh bricks will approximately come to Rs. 15,100.00, as the cost of the labour to the tune of Rs. 3,000.00 cannot be deducted. We, therefore, hold that the complainants are entitled for the payment of Rs. 15,100.00 each. During the pendency of the case, in C.D.I.A. 174 of 1990, this Commission passed an interim order on 29th June, 1991 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000.00 to each of the complainants within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order; and out of Rs. 10,000.00, Rs. 5,000.00 shall be paid in to the bank, which had advanced loans to the complainants and the balance of Rs. 5,000.00 to each of the complainants. In obedience to that order, the opposite party paid Rs. 5,000.00 to each of the complainants and deposited Rs. 5,000.00 in the individual accounts in the bank. After deducting the sum of Rs. 10,000.0already paid, the opposite parties, now, have to pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 5,100.00 (Rupees five thousand one hundred only) each. The said sum of Rs. 5,100.00 (Rupees five thousand one hundred only) shall be deposited in the accounts of the complainants at the State Bank of India, Ibrahimpatnam Branch, Krishna District for being paid to the complainants, within a period of four weeks from today. If the amounts are not deposited within a period of four weeks, the complainants are entitled to interest from that day till the date of deposit at the rate of 18% per annum. The Complainants are also entitled for payment of costs of Rs. 500.00 aggregate (Rupees five hundred only), which is payable within a period of four weeks from today, complaint is allowed in part. Complaint allowed.