AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The present Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the "St ate Commission") in Complaint No. 107/1993 dated 29.09.2008.
Four Complainants, i.e., 1. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Srungavruksham 2. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Straw Boards Ltd. 3. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raw & Boiled Rice Mill 4. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanaryana Modern Rice Mill, Srungavruksham filed Complaints bearing CD No. 106/93, CD No. 107/93, CD No. 108/93, CD No. 109/93 respectively before the State Commission.The present Appeal is filed only in CD No. 107/93 for enhancement of insurance claim as the claim for stocks was not covered by the order of the State Commission.The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation sanctioned the loan for Plant and Machinery and Andhra Bank, Bhimavaram Branch for its working capital.APSFC insured the building and machinery with Respondent No. 2 duly debiting the premium amount from the Appellant's account.Andhra Bank got the stocks insured with Respondent No. 2 covering risk of riot, strike and malicious damage.
According to the Complainants, in the second week of August 1986, due to cyclone followed by heavy rains, the building and machinery as well as the stock in trade of the Complainants were damaged. On 24.08.1986, the Complainants intimated the Opposite Parties/Insurance Company about the loss and a surveyor was appointed by the Respondent, who assessed the loss. The Respondents did not pay the amount to the Appellants.They, therefore, approached Lok Adalat, West Godavari and a notice was given by the Lok Adalat, whereby the Respondents submitted that there was no coverage of flood risk under the policies and hence they were not liable to consider the claims. The Lok Adalat closed the matter and directed the Appellants to pursue remedy open to them under any other law. Thereupon, the Complainants filed W.P. No. 16001/867 in the High Court of A.P. to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order darted 13.11.1992, dismissed the Writ Petition without going into merits.The Appellants were left to seek necessary reliefs before the appropriate Forum. Subsequently, these Complaints were filed before the State Commission claiming various amounts under the four policies. It was alleged in the Complaint that due to diversion of the flood water by rioters who breached the bunds and closed the vent ways in the railway track, water entered the village and the mill premises of the Appellants causing damages.
The Opposite Parties contended in their Written Statement that the Complaint was not a Consumer Dispute and that the Commission had no jurisdiction.Moreover, since the High Court of A.P. dismissed the claim, this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Appellants could file a civil suit in a competent court of law.They submitted that the policies under reference do not cover flood risk and there was absolutely no concluded contract. The Complainants in their original claim intimation letter addressed to the Opposite Parties stated that the loss/damages were caused due to floods and subsequently they twisted the matter and contended that the floods were caused by rioting, only to show that the loss/damages were caused by the peril covered under the policies. The Survey report issued by Sri J.P. Rao clearly stated that the cause of damage was only due to simultaneous heavy rains in the catchment areas in Andhra Pradesh and that contributed to the rise of Godavari River at an alarming rate, resulting in breaches in the Godavari river bund. The Officers of the Insurance Company approached the Lok Adalat and explained the entire situation with reference to the existing facts and the risks etc. under the policies. The Opposite Parties have rightly repudiated the liability on the ground that the policies do not cover such risk. There was no delay in processing the claim. The Complainants were not entitled to the claim and the amount of compensation claimed was highly excessive.
The State Commission, vide order dated 29.09.2008, partly allowed the Complaints on the basis of documentary evidence which showed that they were indeed riots on the day of the incident, which led to inundation of the insured premises, causing damages to the insured property. Repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was unjustified. Respondents were, therefore, directed to pay the amounts as assessed by the surveyor, i.e., Rs.4,72,000/- in C.D. No. 106/1993, Rs.38,200/- in C.D. No. 107/1993, Rs.5,10,000/- in C.D. No. 108/1993 and Rs.3,08,000/- in C.D. No. 109/1993 respectively together with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaints till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance was four weeks.
In CD No. 106, 108 and 109 of 1993 before the State Commission, the surveyor had mentioned that the stock which was insured was damaged due to floods and inundation and since policies did not cover flood, the Opposite Parties could not admit the claims.In CD No. 107/1993 the Opposite Parties submitted that the surveyor had assessed a loss of Rs.45,700/- and Rs.5,000/- was deducted towards salvage and Rs.2500/- towards policy excess and discharge voucher for Rs.38,200/- was sent.It was not disputed that the damage was caused due to water inundation.The only point for consideration was whether damage was caused on account of riots, which led to the flood water entering through premises. As regards CD No. 107/93, the State Commission concluded that there was no justifiable reason for the insurance company not to have settled the claim even though floods were covered under the Policy.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the Respondents. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
The case of the Appellant is that he sustained a loss of Rs.4,50,000/- which was covered by the Policy and the Respondents had neither registered nor entertained the claim on the ground that flood risk was not covered by the Policies.According to him as per the report of the surveyor, claim of Rs.4,50,000/- was fully justified as reflecting the true loss sustained by the Appellant.
The Appellant has filed a Report by Shri J.P. Rao and which was not part of the record before the State Commission.The State Commission had, therefore, no chance to consider the same.From a perusal of the copy of the Report, it is seen that it does not mention any Policy number.It is very surprising that the report of the Surveyor, on which the Appellant based his argument of loss has been appointed by the Appellant himself and not by the Insurance Company.
The Respondent Insurance Company appointed Shri J.P. Rao as Surveyor, who submitted his report on 25.10.1986.As per the report of the Surveyor, the Respondent Insurance Company was ready to pay Rs.38,200/- which the State Commission had rightly ordered to be paid alongwith interest.In other Complaints where damage to stock had been assessed by the Surveyor, the State Commission passed necessary orders for payment for stock lost also.The Surveyor had not assessed any damages of stock of the Appellant.Hence he was not compensated for the same.It is very strange that the Appellant engaged the same individual and got a report on loss of stocks to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/-, while in his report to the Insurance Company, which was submitted later, the same individual, did not mention a single word about the loss of stock.We are unable to rely upon the Report produced by the Appellant, as it does not have any license number on the top of the letterhead, no mention of policies in the report and no stamp on any page of the report.The signature on the last page of the Report also appears to be different from the surveyor report submitted to the Respondent Insurance Company.It is very clear that the Appellant is trying to make a false claim by filing a Report which was never there on the record of the State Commission and the Surveyor was not appointed by the Respondent Insurance Company.We see no illegality in the order passed by the State Commission and see no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission.The order passed by the State Commission is upheld and the Appeal stands dismissed.