KOMAL THEATRE vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE complainant insured her theatre with the opposite party in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the period from 29.5.89 to 28.5.90 covering the risks of fire, flood and cyclone etc. Due to diastruous cyclone that struck the coastal area of Krishna District on the night of 9.5.1990 with high velocity the complainant''s theatre suffered damage. THE items of damage were enumerated in para 4 of the complaint as I to X. THE complainant on 16.5.1990 immediately after the recession of the cyclone, put in a claim with the opposite party. She also got an estimate of probable cost of repairs and replacements by an approved valuer and licenced Surveyor-Mr. Ch. Narasimha Rao who reported on 15.6.1990 a minimum loss of Rs. 3,06,110/ -. But the opposite party intimated to the complainant on 15.10.1991 under Ex. A5 enclosing discharge voucher for Rs. 42,312/- towards full and final settlement of the claim and asking the complainant to refund the voucher after duly signed and counter signed. According to the complainant, the amount offered by the opposite party is pittens, he filed a complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 3,06,110/- under the policy with interest at 24% and damages of Rs. 1,10,685-41Ps and costs.

THE opposite party in their version in the counter admitted the coverage and the cycline but contended that on receiving the claim on 16.5.1990, they immediately appointed a Surveyor who inspected the theatre on the same day and after the survey submitted his report dated 29.7.1990 assessing the loss at Rs. 42,312/-. For the said amount a discharge voucher was sent to the complainant, but she did not accept the same. It was stated that the loss estimated by Sri Narasimha Rao who was appointed by the complainant was highly exaggerated. According to the opposite party, Sri Narasimha Rao included certain items in the estimate such as compound wall, generator room, toilets etc., which are not specifically covered under the policy. He also did not take into consideration, the depreciation and under insurance. It was also submitted that he against item No. 30 mentioned servicing charges for Generator and again in item No. 32 mentioned repairs to the generator i.e., with regard to the same item twice. It is, therefore submitted that the offer of the Insurance Company is quite reasonable and based on the report of the Surveyor-B. Nageswara Rao. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part. It was stated that the claim for Rs. l,10,685-41Ps by way of interest and penal interest payable by the complainant to the A.P. State Film Development Corporation is not sustainable. In support of the case of the complainant Exs. A-1 to A-5 were filed. The opposite party filed Ex. B-1 Surveyor''s report.

Exs. A-1 and A-2 are the insurance Policies. Ex. A-3 is the report submitted by Sri Narasimha Rao of Sree Venkateswara Consulting Engineers appointed by the complainant. Ex. A-4 was filed to show that due to cyclone that occurred in May, 1990 the complainant''s theatre was closed for 23 days. Ex. A-5 is the discharge voucher for Rs. 42,312/- sent by the opposite party.

THE only question in controversy between the parties is as to the loss sustained by the complainant and payable by the opposite party. As seen from Ex. A-3, the Consulting Engineer appointed by the complainant submitted a report assessing the loss at Rs. 3,06,110/-. On the other hand as seen from Ex. B-l Sri B. Nageswara Rao the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the net loss at Rs. 54,175.81 Ps. It is submitted by Sri S.Hanumaiah, the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the Surveyor has included in the damages, items not covered by the policy such as compound wall, generator room, toilets etc. It is also submitted that the theatre was old one and in the report Ex. A-3 submitted by Narasimha Rao he did not allow any amount towards depreciation and under insurance and also towards salvage and that therefore reliance cannot be placed on the report of Sri Ch. Narsimha Rao (Ex. A-3). The learned Counsel for the opposite party also filed a chart showing the difference of the assessment of the complainant''s Engineer and the Surveyor of the Insurance Company. If the items not covered by the policy were excluded and also if 20% depreciation and the extra amounts collected in item No.4 and the salvage and under insurance were taken into consideration, even according to the party''s Surveyor the amount will come to Rs. 76,011/-. Thus there is a difference of Rs. 22,000/- approximately between the party''s Engineer who was appointed by the complainant and the Surveyor report of the Insurance Company. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider that the difference may be apportioned into half and half and the loss can reasonably fixed at Rs. 65,000/-. We accordingly hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 65,000/-.

SINCE the incident occurred on 9.5.1990 and the Insurance Company''s Surveyor submitted a report on 29.7.1990 and the opposite party should have settled the claim within a reasonable period of two months after the submission of the report by the Surveyor i.e., by 1.10.1990, on the other hand the complainant was informed as evidenced by Ex. A-5 only on 15.10.1991 that they have settled the amount at Rs. 42,312/-, we consider that the complainant is entitled for interest on Rs. 65,000/- at 18% from 1.10.1990 to 15.10.1991. Thereafter the complainant is entitled for interest at the same rate i.e., 1.8% on Rs. 22,688/- till the date of payment. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint partly allowed.