NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SRI CHAKRAVARTHI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in which Sri Chakravarthi Enterprises and another were Respondents.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent stated that he had got his two rice mills including buildings, stocks in godown and stocks in open, insured with the Petitioner/Insurance Company from 4.5.1996 to 3.5.1997 for a sum of Rs.231akh against fire and other risks which included storms, cyclone, typhoons, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation. During the validity of the policy, on 6.11.1996 there was a cyclone as a result of which the buildings of the rice mills alongwith stocks of paddy, boiled rice, raw rice, broken rice, bran, empty gunnies were completely damaged. Therefore, on 7.11.1996 i.e. the next day. Respondent sent a telegram to the Petitioner/Insurance Company bringing these facts to their notice and requested for settling the insurance claim. Respondent also personally apprised the Petitioner about the extent of damage, A representative of the Petitioner/Insurance Company visited the premises on 14.11.1996 and 15.11.1996 to inspect the damage caused and also collected photos of the same. On 22,1.1996, a representative again visited the premises along with the Surveyor. However, instead of making any assessment of the damage caused, they made unlawful demands which the Respondent refused to accept and informed the Petitioner/Insurance Company about the conduct of the Surveyor, The Petitioner assured him that the claim would be settled on the basis of documents produced and there was no cause of worry. Respondent, however, decided to get the estimate of loss certified by the Mandal Revenue Officer (M.R.O.) and thereafter submitted a claim to the Petitioner. Despite legal notice, Petitioner /Insurance Company did not settle the claim and also did not respond till September 3,1999, when the Respondent was informed that his claim has been repudiated on the grounds that there was no assessable loss as the Respondent had not been able to substantiate the loss caused due to the cyclone either through credible documentary evidence or through presenting the damaged stocks for physical verification and inspection by the Petitioner's Surveyors. Since, this was factually not correct Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay Respondents an amount of Rs. 4,90,000 towards insurance claim, Rs.5,000 for mental agony and pain suffered and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs.

(3.) Petitioner/Insurance Company denied the above contentions and stated that the Surveyor had after due physical verification of the Petitioner's premises clearly indicated in his report that the Respondent had failed to present the stocks said to have been damaged for physical verification and even the photographs given by the Respondent to the Petitioner's Surveyor did not indicate the presence of rain water or any adverse effect on the stocks. Petitioner/Insurance Company also verified the facts through other independent sources and concluded that no assessable loss was admissible in the instant case and the claim was rightly repudiated.