PRASAD CONSTRUCTIONS AND CO vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 13. 11. 2002 passed by the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the State Commission ). By the impugned order, the State Commission has disposed of the original complaint No. CD. No. 92/1996, whereby partly allowing the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,75,056 towards rectification of work besides a cost of Rs. 10,000.

THE facts are in a narrow compass. The complainant therein was awarded a civil contract work of improvement of Nakkala drain from 21 kms. to 24 kms. in Penna Delta drainage system, Nellore Dist. (N. K. 23) by the Superintending Engineer, P. W. Department, Andhra Pradesh. The complainant had taken five policies from the opposite parties respondents each covering certain stretch of the said drain and certain perils in relation to the execution of the said civil work. The policies were for the period from June, 1993 to December, 1993 but as per further stipulation, the policies, were to remain in force even upto six months of the completion of the work. It is the case of the complainant and not disputed from the side of the insurance company that there were heavy rain and floods cyclone during the months of October and November 1993, on account of which extensive damage was caused to the work of the complainant Claim being lodged by the appellant, a Surveyor in the name of M/s. Narsa Reddy, Insurance Surveyor , Gandhi Nagar, Nellore were appointed and they submitted reports in respect of the assessment of damage under the five policies. Still the insurance company did not pay any amount to the complainant under the said policies and, therefore, complainant filed five complaints, i. e. , four complaints before the District Forum, Nellore and one complaint before the State Commission, depending upon valuation of the said complaints. The District Forum allowed the complaints filed before it and granted the full amount as claimed by the complainants in those complaints. The insurance company, aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum in those complaints, filed appeals before the State Commission but without success inasmuch as appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 11. 11. 2002. It is important to notice that the District Forum had allowed the complaints in toto despite the assessment of the loss made by the Surveyor being much less in those cases. However, the original complaint No. 92/1996 which was filed before the State Commission and which has led to the present appeal was dealt with in a different manner inasmuch as against the claim amount of Rs. 7,01,000, the State Commission upon the pleas and certain correspondence exchanged between the parties reduced the amount of reimbursement to Rs. 1,71,056 which was in fact the assessment made by the Surveyor in his report dated 28. 2. 1994. Though, the said report was not filed by the insurance company before the State Commission, but it has been produced before this Commission. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. L. Gupta, representing the insurance company and have given our thought full consideration to their submission. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly urged before us that cogent material was produced by them before the State Commission in regard to the nature and extent of the damage caused to the civil work executed by the appellant in the stretch of the 21 kms. to 24 kms. and the amount paid by them for rectification/repair of the damage caused due to the heavy cyclone, the State Commission ought to have allowed the claim of the appellant in full rather than on the basis of assessment by the Surveyor which was not produced before the State Commission. He submitted that the State Commission, having already confirmed and up-held the orders of District Forum in four other cases awarding total amount of claim of appellant-complainant, should have allowed the present complaint in full and as a matter of parity. Learned Counsel representing insurance company has not disputed the factum of the other four complaints filed by the appellant herein before the District Forum having been allowed in full and the appeal filed by them (insurance company) having been dismissed by the State Commission. All the five cases involved identical facts except that the amount claimed in the complaints differed. In our opinion, the State Commission ought to have addressed the matters with uniform and consistent approach in dealing with the matters either in appeal or in its original jurisdiction, Learned Counsel for the insurance company fairly concedes that the matter requires reconsideration by the State Commission in view of the above noted position.

For the above stated reason, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the learned State Commission for disposal of complaint No. 92/1996 afresh in accordance with their own view taken in Appeal No. 214/1998 to 217/1998 titled as Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Prasad Construction Company Limited, decided on 11. 11. 2002. In the result we allow this appeal and remit back the matter to the board of the State Commission for disposal of the complaint afresh as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 5. 3. 2008 for further directions in the matter.

A copy of the order be forwarded to the State Commission and also handed over Dasti to the appellant. During the pendency of the present appeal before this Commission, the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 1,75,056 to the appellant which aspect shall be kept in view by the State Commission while disposing of the complaint. Appeal allowed.