[ad_1]
Complaint No. I.O.(HYD) G -11. 011.342. 2009-10
Sri Gottipati Bala Subba Naidu
V/s
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Sri Bala Subba Naidu insured two tobacco barns under a Group Master Policy issued to the Tobacco Board by M/s Bajaj Allianz General. Both the barns were gutted in a fire accident on 16.3.09. Sri Bala Subba Naidu preferred a claim for loss to the tune of Rs.2,11,300 but the insurer offered to settle the claim at Rs.47,868. The complainant rejected the offer and requested for reconsideration of the offer. Since the insurance company did not respond to him, Sri Naidu lodged a complaint with this office.
The complainant stated that both his barns were damaged by fire on 16.3.09. The insurance company arranged a survey and finally offered to settle an amount of Rs.47,868 which he refused to accept as the loss he suffered was much higher. “The insurer explained that the policy issued to the Tobacco Board covering the barns of its members has different sections, each having different sums insured. The policy also is subject to policy excess of Rs.10,000 on each barn. The insurer submitted that they had deputed an IRDA licenced surveyor to inspect the damage and assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.47,910 for one barn and the loss in respect of the second barn was much less than policy excess of Rs.10,000. Hence the complainant was offered payment of Rs.47,910 as full and final settlement of the claim.
ORDER
The complainant claimed that two barns of the complainant were destroyed by fire. The surveyor deputed by the insurer assessed the loss on only one barn with. The complainant has filed evidence in the form of certificates from the fire brigade and the MRO to show that the fire accident occurred in both the barns. The insurer did not rebut this claim with any evidence. Consequently, the claim of the complainant that both the barns suffered damage has to be accepted.
The question is the extent of the damage and the claim that can be admitted. The complainant has filed a statement that he incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,58,300 towards repairs to the barns while claiming that the value of stocks lost was Rs. 81,000 in the claim of Rs.2,11,300. After reducing the value of stocks, the damage to the structure, as per the claim worked out to Rs.1,30,300. The claim in respect of damage to the barns has to be reckoned as Rs.1,30,300.
The complainant is directed to furnish to the insurer supporting bills for this expenditure and the insurer is directed to examine the claim in this behalf afresh and allow expenditure that has been incurred by the complainant towards the barns. It is made clear that the insurer is precluded from raising the issue that only one barn was gutted in fire. On the basis of evidence adduced, it was holded that both the barns of the complainant were damaged in the fire accident and that claim is exigible equally in respect of both the barns.
The insurer’s surveyor assessed loss of tobacco in respect of one barn at Rs.35,285 for 5 quintals @ Rs. 7057 per quintal. This is accepted as reasonable in respect of one barn. The insurer’s surveyor did not accept the claim of loss in the other barn. It was holded that the complainant had lost the stock in the second barn also and that claim is exigible in respect of “such stock as well. It estimated the value of stock destroyed in the second barn at Rs.30,000 and directed the insurer to pay this amount.
In fine, the claim of the complainant insofar as the loss/damage to the structure is restored for fresh examination and assessment of the claims in accordance with the terms of the policy. The claim in respect to loss of stocks in the barns is allowed at Rs.65,285 (Rs.35,285 plus Rs. 30,000). In the result, the complaint is treated as allowed in part.
[ad_2]
Source link