SAI ANIL ENTERPRISES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sai Anil Enterprises
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THE complainant is a
proprietary concern dealing in wholesale and retail cloth business like
suitings, shirtings and other types of clothes in the premises bearing
No. 13/520/1, R.T. Street, Cuddapah which obtained the insurance policy
bearing No. 432700/600/1/48/SKP/91 dated 3.3.1999 for a sum of Rs.
8,20,000/ - from the opposite parties which is valid up to 2.3.2000. While so fire broke out in the shop at 2.00 a.m. on 19.3.1999 due to
short -circuit of electricity due to which the entire cloth material has
turned into ashes. The complainant made a complaint to the Fire Station
as well as to the Police Station, Cuddaph and the opposite parties. The
Surveyor deputed by the opposite parties inspected the premises and
arrived at the loss assessment at Rs. 5,52,544/ -. The Chartered
Accountant -cum -Sales Tax Practitioner also estimated the loss. But the
opposite parties without settling he claim went on dodging on some
pretext or the other. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice and
filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 10,49,130/ - with interest at 24
per cent per annum from the date of the incident till payment together
(2.) IN the written version filed by the opposite parties while admitting the policy as well as the fact that fire broke out accidentally
on the early hours of 19.3.1999 but denied their liability beyond what
was assessed by the final Surveyor Mr. B.S. Murthy. It is further stated
that the Surveyor appointed by the opposite parties submitted his report
on 30.4.1999 based on physical verification, volumetric analysis and oral
submission of the complainant. As the survey report was done on ad hoc
basis without verifying the purchase invoices and applying uniform rate
of different materials did not represent correct picture, so they
appointed Mr. B.S. Murthy for final survey and as per his report, the
appellants offered Rs. 1,93,606/ -. As such there is no negligence on
(3.) THE complainant besides filing his affidavit of the proprietor also filed Exs. A -1 to A -9 while the opposite parties besides filing the
affidavit of the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Greenlands,
Hyderabad filed the report of Mr. B.S. Murthy marked Ex. B -1.
The point therefore that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,
if so to what extent ?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.