STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/222/2022 JAYARAMAN NAIR V PRESENT ADDRESS - NO 28/89 YES YES VILLA WEST FORT ROAD RAPPADI PALAKKAD HPO PALAKKAD TALUK 678001 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DIVISIONAL OFFICE PALAKKAD NO 11/82 3 RD FLOOR MALABAR FORT G B ROAD PALAKKAD 678001 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 17/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 222/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.177/2018 on the files of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Jayaraman Nayar V., S/o Kesavan Nair, No.28/89, ‘Yes Yes’ Villa, West Fort Road, Rappadi, Palakkad HPO P.O., Palakkad Taluk, Pin – 678 001 (by Party in person)

Vs RESPONDENT:

Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Palakkad,

rd

No.11/82, 3 Floor, Malabar For, G.B. Road, Palakkad – 678 001

(by Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR :PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.177/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant had taken a standard fire and special perils policy covering the period from 22.05.2015 to 21.05.2025. The above said policy covers the residential building, compound wall and well belonging to the complainant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,898.90 (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight and Ninety paise only) as one time premium. While so, during the night of 28.07.2018, there was an unusual heavy rain in the area where the house of the complainant was situated and as a consequence, the southern compound wall of the complainant collapsed to a length of 17 metres. The matter was informed to the opposite party. The opposite party appointed a surveyor to inspect the property. Accordingly, the surveyor inspected the property and filed a report, wherein the loss was assessed at Rs.32,500/-(Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred only). The complainant submitted a claim before the opposite party. However, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the policy did not cover damage due to heavy rain. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed a written version admitting the coverage of the house, compound wall and the well of the complainant in the policy issued by the opposite party. The opposite party also admitted the damage caused to the compound wall of the complainant. The opposite party further contended that since heavy rain was not covered under the policy issued to the complainant, the complainant was not entitled to get damages on account of the collapsing of the compound wall in the heavy rain. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 4. Before the District Commission, the proof affidavit was filed by the complainant. Exhibits A1 to A3 were also marked for the complainant. On the side of the opposite party, DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

5. The appellant is present in person.

6. Heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

7. It is not disputed that the residential building and the compound wall of the complainant was covered by Exhibit A1 Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the opposite party. It is also not disputed that there was a heavy rainfall on 28.07.2018 and as a consequence, th