VADLAMANNATI MURALIKRISHNA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO separate appeals have been filed by the Appellants/Complainants against a common order passed in the complaints filed by both the Appellants/Complainants before the State Commission. Briefly the facts of the case are. FIRST APPEAL NO. 155/95 1. The complainants had in all taken up Eucalyptus plantation work in all in 44 acres of land fragmented in five chaks for which loan was obtained from Indian Bank. When the plantation was five and a half years old, an insurance policy was obtained from the Respondent Company for Rs. 2,20,000/-. On 8-11-1989 on account of cyclone and heavy gale extensive damage was caused to the trees/plantation. A claim was lodged which was not accepted upon which a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after examination of material on record and hearing both the parties ordered the Respondent to pay Rs. 3,347/- per acre for 44 acres after deducting the excess of Rs. 2,500/- or 5% of the assessed loss whichever is higher along with interest @ 12% 9-11-1989 till the date of payment and cost of Rs. 500/-. FIRST APPEAL NO. 176/95

(2.) IN this case the Complainants had taken up Eucalyptus plantation work on 12 acres of land after obtained loan from Indian Bank and after the plantation was more than five years old, an insurance policy was taken for Rs. 54,000/-. Plantation was seriously damaged by cyclone on 8-11-1989 upon which a claim was preferred with the Respondent Company. Not getting any satisfactory response from the Insurance Company, a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties, through a common order directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 3,347/- per acre for 12 acres of the plantation areas after deducting excess of Rs. 2,500/- or 5% of the assessed loss whichever is higher along with interest @ 12% from 9-11-1989 till the date of payment and cost of Rs. 500/-. Respondent, in spite of notice, being absent, was moved ex parte.

(3.) WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments and found that while it is true that the State Commission had indeed given a chance to the opposite party/Respondent to dispose off the fallen timber through auction but it could not materialize as some talks were going on between the parties. But the fact remains that there was fallen timber. There is not even a whisper from the complainant as to what happened to that timber, giving us the impression that he has not come with clean hands. No. valuation of the timber was given by the complainant in the absence of which State Commission in our view was quite right in relying upon the value of timber in similar circumstances of casurina plantation even though we are aware that Eucalyptus timber is more costly than the casurina timber. (Had this valuation been taken into account it would have gone against the appellant/complainant.) The complainant/appellant cannot be expected to get the full value of the loss and retain the fallen timber as well. It is a standard Insurance practice that salvage is to be set off from the total loss which exactly has been done in these cases. Based on the available material on record, the State Commission has passed a balanced order. No new facts or law point has been put forward before us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. Both these appeals are dismissed. No, orders on costs.