SAI ANIL ENTERPRISES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-3-8
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 13,2003

Sai Anil Enterprises Appellant
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Respondents

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 with costs.
(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 their part.
(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 ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.