KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL 465/05

JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2011

PRESENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                      :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                    :    MEMBER             

APPELLANT

K.V. Jacob,

S/o Varkey, Kalapurackal House,

Venmani, Mamala P.O., Ernakulam Dist.

          (Rep. by  Adv. Sri. George Cherian Karippaparambil )

                                 Vs

RESPONDENT

The Divisional Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Aluva Divisional Office,

Koduvath Shopping Complex, Sub Jail Road, Aluva – 683 101

        .                                (Rep. by  Adv. P.G. Ganappan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA             :  MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 757/03 order dated 10.3.2005.

          The complainant is the appellant and the respondent is the opposite party in the above O.P. respectively.

          The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal from the dismissal order of the complainant by the Forum below.

          In the case of the complainant is that the complainant has decided to construct a new residential building consisting of two floors.  The construction was with the financial assistance of the Federal Bank ltd. Puthencruz branch.  In the first phase of the construction of the building the ground floor was completed on 10.11.2001.  After the completion of the ground floor that portion was insured with the opposite party by the bank  for a period of 25.4.2002 to 24.4.2003.  The sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/-  The first Floor work was started on 2.5.2002.  The concreting of the first floor roof was on 2.6.2002.  On 7.6.2002 early morning,  the residential building totally collapsed due to heavy torrential rain along with heavy rain there occurred mild earth tremors in that area.  There were unprecedented  geological phenomenon like strong tides noticed in the well of the complainant and adjacent wells in the locality.  The complainant intimated the accident to the opposite party and the bank.  But the Insurance Company(opposite party) repudiated the claim by letter dated 21.10.2002.  The ground mentioned in the repudiation letter is that the complainant who suppresses the material facts and that the collapse of the building was due to defective construction.  Hence the complainant alleging deficiency in service of the opposite party has claimed a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs  with interest 18% per annum  from 21.10.2002 till realization. 

          The opposite party has issued a standard fire and special perils also in favour of the Federal Bank Ltd on condition of the complainant for the period from 25.4.2002 to 25.4.2003 for residential building of the complainant.  The risk that was sought and covered under the policy was in respect of a residential building and the claim submitted by the complainant  was in respect of a building that was under construction.  As far as  the building under construction is concerned, the risk factor is larger than a residential building and accordingly the premium rate is also in respect of a building in construction.  Though the building was under construction, the complainant obtained policy by suppressing that fact and so the contract of the Insurance is void.  On receiving the intimation, regarding the damage the opposite party arranged an independent spot survey through Zemders,  General Insurance Surveyors.  Loss assessors and Project consultants and survey report shows that the building was collapsed purely due to the defective construction, and the