AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant is trading in old tyres in the name and style of M/s. Royal Tyre at Nellore. He has taken insurance coverage for the tyres since 1994 renewing the policy from time to time. THE second opposite party renewed the same from 5.6.1997 to 6.6.1998 for a sum of Rs. 14,50,000/- after collecting premium of Rs. 6,603/-. While so on the intervening night of 17/18.5.1998 the old tyres lying in the premises of the complainant caught fire. Immediately the fire service authorities were pressed into service to put off the fire. THE first opposite party was informed, who deputed Mr. A. Syamal Rao, Administrative Officer of first opposite party along with Mr. D.S. Kamath, Surveyor on 19.5.1998. However the first opposite party offered a sum of Rs. 1,99,852/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant. Though the copy of the survey report was sought for it was not furnished to the complainant. THE complainant has not accepted the said amount and filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a., Rs. 1 lakh towards inconvenience and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
IN the counter filed by the first opposite party while admitting the policy as well as the fire accident it is stated that they offered a sum of Rs. 1,99,852/- and sent the discharge voucher to the second opposite party on the basis of the assessment made by the Surveyor. It is the complainant who failed to give the discharge voucher for the amount settled. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. The complainant besides filing his affidavit evidence filed Exs. A-1 to A-17 while the opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit evidence through their Deputy Manager, Hyderabad besides filing Exs. B-1 to B-9.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, to what extent ?
EX. A-1 is the policy which is in force from 5.6.1997 to 4.6.1998 which is Fire Policy ''C'' covering the stocks for a sum of Rs. 14,50,000/-. The accident took place on 17/18.5.1998. According to the complainant the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,00,000/-. The Surveyor filed his report EX. B-3. According to him the stock of old tyres were stored in open yard which is 65'' x 40''. The Surveyor estimated that on the basis of the space available as well as from the records there would be 2430 tyres at the time of the accident out of which 2218 tyres must have been burnt for which loss assessment was made. He also found 196 partly burnt tyres. As the insured purchased the tyres from A.P.S.R.T.C. through auction he found out the rate from Stores Department of A.P.S.R.T.C. and accordingly fixed the rate at Rs. 102.58 ps. per tyre and accordingly arrived at Rs. 2,27,522/- for 2218 tyres. Salvage value of Rs. 17,670/- and policy excess of Rs. 10,000/- were deducted and the balance of Rs. 1,99,852/- was offered. The complainant submits that in the survey report 2455 kgs. of steel rings were noted which were salvaged were found in the burnt tyres. According to the Surveyor 825 gms. were found in each tyre on average. If calculated on the basis of the steel rings 2975 tyres should have been there, partly burnt tyres are 196 and if they are also added the total comes to 3171 tyres. Therefore, the estimate of the Surveyor that the number of burnt tyres would be around 2218 cannot be correct. The Surveyor has taken the measurement of the area as 65'' x 40'' and normally 10 layers of tyres would be piled up one over the other and he has accordingly come to the conclusion that 2218 tyres would have been burnt out of which partly burnt tyres were 196. Here the learned Counsel for the complainant says basing on Ex. A-2 the Fire Service Attendance Certificate that the open yard is noted as 80 ft. x 40 ft. and, therefore, the calculation of the Surveyor cannot be correct. We cannot accept this contention, as the fire service attendance certificate does not show that the site was measured by anybody. But the Surveyor in his report Ex. B-3 stated that he had measured the area at the time of survey and it was found to be 65'' x 40''. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting that the area is 65'' x 40'' and not 80'' x 40''.
AS already seen, the learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the burnt tyres should be at least 3171, if calculated on the basis of the weight of the steel rings. We cannot arrive at the number of tyres on the basis of the weight of steel rings. The common method of arriving at the number of tyres is on the basis of the space occupied by them as calculated by the Surveyor which is a safe method for which there cannot be any complaint. Therefore, we accept the figure arrived at by the Surveyor that the number of tyres burnt/damaged are 2218. The next question is whether the Surveyor is justified in taking over the price of each tyre at Rs. 102.58 ps. The complainant is purchasing unserviceable nylon tyres during auction. As per the latest approved auction average rate for the period April/May, 1998 the rate can be arrived at Rs. 102.58 ps. per tyre. The Stores Officer, Zonal Stores, APSRTC, Nellore has given a letter dated 26.8.1998 marked Ex. B-2 wherein he has stated that the average rate of 900 x 20 14PR Nylon tyres is Rs. 102.58 ps. However the learned Counsel for the complainant relies on Ex. A-15 dated 2.1.1993 which contains that the average cost of the tyre is around Rs. 310/-, 10% plus or minus. This agreement is dated 2.1.1993, between the complainant and APSRTC, according to the terms of which the complainant agreed to purchase 9,600 number of unserviceable nylon 14 Ply tyres 9.00 x 20 for Rs. 310/- each and this agreement will be enforced from 2.1.1993 to 27.12.1993 or till the quantity is completed which is later. From this agreement we are unable to conclude that the complainant was paying at the rate of Rs. 310/- per tyre but not as per Ex. B-2 which shows the latest auction approved average rates. There is nothing to doubt the letter of the Stores Oficer, Zonal Stores, APSRTC, Nellore marked Ex. B-2 which contains the latest auction approved average rates. Therefore, adoption of those rates by the Surveyor cannot be found fault with.
FOR these reasons we are of the opinion that the offer made by the first opposite party is not unreasonable. It is the complainant that failed to submit the voucher or any full satisfaction.
HOWEVER, the complainant filed the complaint on 3.3.1999, but the opposite party deposited the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on 24.11.2000 after the complainant filed writ petition and writ appeal. As the first opposite party has not deposited the amount immediately on filing the complaint, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to interest on Rs. 2 lakhs from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit i.e., 24.11.2000 at the rate of 9% p.a. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the first opposite party to pay interest at 9% p.a. on Rs. 2 lakhs from the date of the complaint till the date of deposit i.e., 24.11.2000. As this amount was not paid on 24.11.2000 the complainant is entitled to interest on this amount so calculated at 9% p.a. from 24.11.2000 till payment. The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Time for payment six weeks. The complaint against second opposite party is dismissed. Appeal partly allowed.