M GANDHI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first complainant is a Doctor by profession and second complainant is his wife. They constructed a Nursing Home at Uyyuru with 20 beds and operation theatre. They insured the building for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- and furniture and fittings for Rs.30,000/-, in all a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- with the United India Insurance Company i. e. , the opposite party under an Insurance Policy covering the risk of cyclone between 8.12.1989 to 7.12.1990. While so due to un-precedented severe cyclone that occurred on 9.5.1990 the building and the equipment and furniture insured was badly effected. The complainant got the loss estimated immediately by a qualified Engineer and Architect and licenced Surveyor V. Srinivasa Rao. The Insurance Company appointed S. Raghunathan, Surveyor of Madras in May, 1990 itself to inspect the building and assess the loss. But the said Raghunathan did not visit the premises of the complainant and when the complainant and V. Srinivasa Rao Engineer went to Madras as requested by Raghunathan, he orally discussed the matter and arbitrarily reduced the amount on various items assessed by Srinivasa Rao without any basis. The Insurance Company subsequently basing on the report or said to have been submitted by Raghunathan and applying the condition of under insurance offered a sum of Rs.36,828/-. The complainants did not accept the same, as the amount was arrived at arbitrarily without proper estimate of loss. Hence the complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of the building, for fixtures and furniture, Rs.48,000/- towards compensation, in all a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

(2.) The opposite party filed a counter denying the claim of the complainant and stating that on receiving information, immediately the opposite party appointed a Surveyor S. Raghunathan of Madras who submitted his report on 27.9.1990 with subsequent amendment on 16.10.1990. The Insurance Company offered the amount of Rs.36,828 /- as determined by the Surveyor. But the complainant did not voucher duly signed and that therefore there is no delay or negligence on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant. It was further stated that the survey conducted by V. Srinivasa Rao cannot be relied upon since he had not taken into consideration the various aspects such as depreciation, under insurance etc.

(3.) A reply to the counter affidavit was filed stating that S. Raghunathan did not come to the spot and did not verify the loss and also did not examine the correctness of the report submitted by V. Srinivasa Rao. On the other hand one Mr. Ganesh said to be the representative of Surveyor Raghunathan came to Vuyyur and took away the estimate prepared by V. Srinivasa Rao and asked the complainant to send M. R. O. certificate, photographs and plan of the building and promised that Raghunathan will visit the Nursing Home personally for assessment. But subsequently Raghunathan never visited the Nursing Home and therefore has no personal knowledge about the loss and hence the opposite party was in error in relying on the alleged report of Raghunathan prepared without inspecting the spot and hence reliance should be placed on the report of V. Srinivasa Rao.