The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance policy coverage and the assessment of damages by the surveyor.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Member—The present Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 107/1993 dated 29.09.2008.

2. Four Complainants, i.e., 1. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Srungavruksham 2. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Straw Boards Ltd. 3. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raw & Boiled Rice Mill 4. Sree Veera Venkata Satyanaryana Modern Rice Mill, Srungavruksham filed Complaints bearing CD No. 106/93, CD No. 107/93, CD No. 108/93, CD No. 109/93 respectively before the State Commission. The present Appeal is filed only in CD No. 107/93 for enhancement of insurance claim as the claim for stocks was not covered by the order of the State Commission. The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation sanctioned the loan for Plant and Machinery and Andhra Bank, Bhimavaram Branch for its working capital. APSFC insured the building and machinery with Respondent No. 2 duly debiting the premium amount from the Appellant’s account. Andhra Bank got the stocks insured with Respondent No. 2 covering risk of riot, strike and malicious damage.

3. According to the Complainants, in the second week of August 1986, due to cyclone followed by heavy rains, the building and machinery as well as the stock in trade of the Complainants were damaged. On 24.08.1986, the Complainants intimated the Opposite Parties/Insurance Company about the loss and a surveyor was appointed by the Respondent, who assessed the loss. The Respondents did not pay the amount to the Appellants. They, therefore, approached Lok Adalat, West Godavari and a notice was given by the Lok Adalat, whereby the Respondents submitted that there was no coverage of flood risk under the policies and hence they were not liable to consider the claims. The Lok Adalat closed the matter and directed the Appellants to pursue remedy open to them under any other law. Thereupon, the Complainants filed W.P. No. 16001/867 in the High Court of A.P. to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order darted 13.11.1992, dismissed the Writ Petition without going into merits. The Appellants were left to seek necessary reliefs before the appropriate Forum. Subsequently, these Complaints were filed before the State Commission claiming various amounts under the four policies. It was alleged in the Complaint that due to diversion of the flood water by rioters who breached the bunds and closed the vent ways in the railway track, water entered the village and the mill premises of the Appellants causing damages.

4. The Opposite Parties contended in their Written Statement that the Complaint was not a Consumer Dispute and that the Commission had no jurisdiction. Moreover, since the High Court of A.P. dismissed the claim, this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Appellants could file a civil suit in a competent court of law. They submitted that the policies under reference do not cover flood risk and there was absolutely no concluded contract. The Complainants in their original claim intimation letter addressed to the Opposite Parties stated that the loss/damages were caused due to floods and subsequently they twisted the matter and contended that the floods were caused by rioting, only to show that the loss/damages were caused by the peril covered under the policies. The Survey report issued by Sri J.P. Rao clearly stated that the cause of damage was only due to simultaneous heavy rains in the catchment areas in Andhra Pradesh and that contributed to the rise of Godavari River at an alarming rate, resulting in breaches in the Godavari river bund. The Officers of the Insurance Company approached the Lok Adalat and explained the entire situation with reference to the existing facts and the risks etc. under the policies. The Opposite Parties have rightly repudi