BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JAGANNATH COCONUT STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the decision of the District Forum, Puri in C. D. Case No.61 of 1995. M/s. Shree Jagannath Coconut Store situated at Sakhigopal represented by its proprietor Sri Gangadhar Behera was the complainant in the aforesaid case. He claimed a compesnation of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) from the United India Insurance Company alleging that the premises where the business was being carried on was covered by a policy of insurance for the period from 31.3.1994 to 30.3.1995. The coconuts stored in the godown were damaged and washed away during heavy rains in the month of August, 1994 when the godown premises was seriously affected by flood water. The complainant reported the matter to the Insurance Company and claimed a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand ). His further averments in the complaint petition are that on 18.8.1994 one Mr. Pradip Banerjee came to the godown premises for making an assessment of loss suffered by the complainant. It is alleged that during his visit the flood water had not receded which the Surveyor also noticed during his inspection. The Surveyor advised the complainant to produce the Sale Register, Purchase Register, Stock Register, copy of the insurance policy and the copy of the F. I. R. , if any for the purpose of estimation of the loss suffered by the complainant. Though the complainant requested the Insurance Company to inspect the records in his godown premises, the Insurance Company turned deaf ears to such requests. After the flood water receded, the complainant was in a position to assess the actual loss and in his application dated 15.12.1994 revised his claim by enhancing the same to Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand ). It is also alleged that the Insurance Company settled the loss at Rs.132/- (Rupees one hundred thirty two) on 19.12.1994 which according to the complainant is grossly inadequate, for which he did not receive the said amount. He filed the application before the Consumer Forum for appropriate redressal.

(2.) The Insurance Company filed a show cause denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. It was stated therein that the policy taken by the complainant was a policy of shopkeepers' which covers the articles inside the premises. The Surveyor, therefore, made an assessment of the loss sustained by the complainant that on account of damage to the coconuts which according to him were stored inside the godown and not outside the godown. It was also denied that the estimate of the loss by the Surveyor was justified and as the complainant did not receive the said amount in spite of notice, the claim was closed.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and looking to the documents which were placed before it allowed the claim of the complainant awarding Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) and also awarded a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred ). Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company has filed C. D. A. No.421 of 1995, whereas the complainant has filed the other appeal, namely C. D. A. No.649 (A)/95 claiming higher compensation.