LALITH KUMAR vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant in CD 239/91 insured his three super structure buildings which were used as godowns for storing the tobacco in which he was doing business with the opposite party Insurance Company on 29.8.1989 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as evidenced by document No. 1 covering the risk of fire cyclone for the period commencing from 31.8.1989 to 30.8.1990. IT is also not in dispute that the buildings were damaged in the cyclone that hit the coastal area of A.P. on 9th and 10th of May, 1990.

ACCORDING to the complainant he intimated the extensive loss caused to the roof and walls to the opposite parties and claimed an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-. But the Development Officer of the opposite party Insurance Company obtained his signature even without his knowledge and intimated the opposite parties that the complainant is claiming only a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor Mr. G.G.K. Prasad who submitted his report after due inspection and enquiry. The opposite parties sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 63,783/- in full and final settlement of the claim. But the complainant as evidenced by document No. 2 dated 6.8.1990 intimated the Divisional Manager i.e. first opposite party that he is prepared to receive the said amount under protest without prejudice to his rights and claims under the insurance policy. Thereafter there was exchange of Lawyer notices between the parties as evidenced by documents 3 to 10 i.e. complainant claiming a sum of only Rs. 2,80,000/- and the opposite party Insurance Company insisting that the complainant was entitled for payment of Rs. 63,783/-. The complaint is, therefore, filed on 11.2.1991 claiming a sum of Rs. 2,80,000- with interest at 24% p.a. In their version, the opposite parties denied the taking of the signature of the complainant by the Development Officer in the alleged claim for Rs. 1,50,000/- and submitted that the surveyor Mr. G.G.K. Prasad assessed the net loss at Rs. 1,03,200/- subject to terms and conditions and exceptions of the policy including under insurance. Taking these factors into consideration, the net loss was arrived at by the Insurance Company as Rs. 63,783/- and the same was offered to the complainant. They also denied that the complainant actually reconstructed the walls. Since the complainant did not accept the amount of Rs. 63,783/- as offered by the opposite parties by way of full and final settlement and as he wanted to accept it only under protest, the same was not paid to the complainant. It was also stated that subsequently another surveyor was appointed who submitted his report on 30.10.1991 and as the Insurance Company offered the amount of net loss i.e. Rs. 63,783/- there is no deficiency of service on their part.

The complainant filed a reply reiterating his contentions in the complaint and further stated that the second surveyor was appointed after filing of the complaint and he did not visit and did not make proper enquiry.

IT is to be seen, we are only concerned with the question as to the quantum of net loss suffered by the complainant on account of the cyclone. According to the complainant, the net loss caused by cyclone to the three buildings insured was Rs. 2,80,000/-. He relied on the valuation report of the property made by one G. Venkateswara Rao, Municipal approved surveyor at the instance of the complainant, who assessed the loss at Rs. 2,10,000/-. On the other hand the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor Mr. G.G.K. Prasad who submitted his report on 6.6.1990 assessing the net loss at Rs. 1,03,200/-. Except stating in the correspondence that basing on the terms and conditions and exceptions of the policy and also after taking into consideration the amount under insurance, the opposite parties rightly assessed the net loss at Rs. 63,783/- and offered the same, no details were furnished as to how that amount was arrived at by the opposite parties. It is also not known how the amount of under insurance was arrived at, as there was no mention in the surveyor''s report dated 6.6.1990 about the Insurance Company. It appears from the rough working made by the opposite parties that in respec to the report of Mr. G.G.K. Prasad the opposite parties have rounded off the figures given by Mr. G.G.K. Prasad in case of assessment of loss of MS angular trusses including purlins from Rs. 56,171/- to Rs 38,400/-, and GCI sheets roofing including J. Bolts and labour from Rs. 43,884/- to Rs. 30,050 and laying of 10 GCL sheets from Rs. 21,262/- to Rs. 13,500/-. But no other details have been given. No doubt in the report of the second surveyor who was appointed after filing of the complaint and who submitted his report on 30.10.1991 deducted in his report 18.69% under insurance i.e. Rs. 20,760 /-.But this is subsequent to the filing of the complaint and hence we are not inclined to place much reliance on this report. There is no other evidence on record to show that the first surveyor''s report is not correct and the opposite parties did not produce any documents to show how they have worked out the figure of Rs. 63,783/-. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that having regard to the report of the surveyor Sri G.G.K. Prasad dated 6.6.1990, the net loss suffered by the complainant is Rs. 1,03,200/-. The opposite parties though offered to pay a sum of Rs. 63,783 /- and when the complainant agreed to accept the same under protest, the opposite parties did not pay the amount to the complainant. Thus the complainant has not received any amount under his claim. We, therefore, direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,03,200/- with interest at 18% p.a.

IN view of the correspondence between the parties and a report submitted by the surveyor, we direct payment of interest from the date of surveyor''s report i.e. 6.6.1990. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, and the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 1,03,200/- (Rupees one lakh three thousand two hundred only) with interest at 18% p.a. from 6.6.1990 till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs in this complaint. Complaint allowed in part.