B.KARUNAKARA HEGDE vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- with interest thereon from the opposite party-National INsurance Company Ltd.

THE complainant is the owner of Banu Talkies at Chickmagalur, insured the said talkies with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- under Ex. C. 1. THE period of the policy was from 7.3.90 to 6.3.91. During the currency of the said policy on 31.3.90 a fire accident took place due to short- circuit of electricity. The theatre sustained heavy loss, building and the machinery were destroyed. The complainant, thereafter, made a claim with the opposite party but the opposite party though deputed its Surveyor and got the loss sustained by the complainant surveyed, repudiated the claim on certain untenable grounds. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking Compensation from the opposite party.

The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact that the said theatre was insured, as averred by the complainant. The Opposite party further averred that on survey it was found that the complainant has acted in violation of Clause 8 of the policy and so the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

ON the basis of these averments, the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry the complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and got Exs. C.l to C.5 marked in evidence. The opposite party got a private Investigator examined as R.W. 1 and got Exs. R.l to R.6 marked in evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties. WE also perused the pleadings and the material on record. The opposite party has admitted the fact that it had issued policy, Ex. C.l. It denied the fact that the fire accident was due to short circuit of electricity as averred by the complainant. The complainant has at para 4 of his complaint averred that the fire accident was due to the short circuit of electricity and that is the evidence of C.W. 1 the complainant. Ex. C. 2 is the report of the Fire Brigade Authorities who had extinguished the fire. They have stated that the cause of fire was due to short circuiting of the electricity.

THE opposite party has suggested to C.W. 1 in the cross-examination thus : "THE fire took place behind the screen. THEre is a fire scene in the said picture "Apath Bandhava". It is not true to suggest that when that fire incident in the picture was being shown, myself and my employees set-fire to magnify the said scene"

THE opposite party has not placed any material on record to accept this theory of the opposite party that the complainant himself set fire to the theatre to magnify a scene in the cinema. Having regard to these facts, we are of the opinion that the fire accident took place due to short circuiting of electricity as averred by the complainant.

The complainant has sought Compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- as having sustained the loss in the said fire accident to that extent.

THE complainant has stated that he had purchased the said talkies in the month of February, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- and had spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards its renovation. THE complainant has not produced any material on record to show that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for its renovation by the time the fire accident took place on 31.3.90. THE fire accident took place on 31.3.90. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the said talkies on 15.2.90. THE fire accident took place on 31.3.90 within this period of 6 weeks it is the case of the complainant that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for its renovation. But the complainant has not produced any material to show that he had spent that amount for its renovation. The Survey report given by Surveyor Subbaramu shows that the complainant had sustained a loss in a sum of Rs. 2,23,977.05. Another report given by Surveyor Prabhu as per Ex. R.6 shows that the complainant had sustained a loss in the said fire accident in a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Those Surveyors have not been examined by the opposite party. The opposite party has produced report Ex. R.5 recorded by a Investigator, R.W. 1.

R.W. 1 has stated that during his investigation he recorded statements of number of persons and on that basis he had made the report. We are not satisfied with the evidence of this witness or the report of this witness has got any evidentiary value. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant has acted in violation of Clause 8 of the policy. Clause 8 of the policy reads as under : "If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act, or with the connivance of the insured, all benefits under the policy shall be forfeited."

THIS would go to show that if the claim of the complainant is fraudulent, then only as per the terms of this clause the complainant would not be entitled to any benefits under the policy.

THE opposite party has not placed any material on record to show that the claim of the complainant was fraudulent. So having regard to these facts we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant has admitted that he purchased the said talkies for Rs. 1,35,000/- about 1 months earlier to the accident. The complainant has not produced any material on record to show that he had spent any money over it subsequent to his purchase as claimed by him in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Having regard to these facts, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get reimbursed in a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant relying on Clause 8 of the policy.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from 1.4.90 till the date of its payment to the complainant. The opp. party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- towards costs of this proceeding to the complainant.

THE opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from this date. complaint allowed with costs.