BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.945/2008 against CC.No.923/2007 District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.

Between:

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rep. by its Regional Manager,

6-3-871, Snehalatha Building,

Greenlands Road, Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

M/s.Sai Boda Hotels,

Rep. by its Managing Partner,

Sri B.Raviraj, S/o.Sri B.Chithambaram,

Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business,

Office at : 11-5-431, Red Hills,

Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant                :  Mr.G.Dinesh Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent            :  Mr.M.Nageswara Rao.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER,

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad awarding Rs.3,80,000/- towards damage to the  compound wall together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that it was a proprietary concern doing small business and insured the premises for Rs.1,25,000/- vide Ex.A.1 Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy for the period commencing 10.02.2005 to 09.02.2006.  While so, on 25.04.2005 due to the thunderstorm and rain the compound wall of the building was collapsed and he sustained a loss of Rs.3,80,000/- which was assessed by the surveyor, G.Rama Murthy.  When he made claim, it was repudiated by letter dated 23.05.2006 on the ground that the compound wall was not covered by the terms of the policy.  Thereupon, he filed the complaint claiming Rs.3,80,000/- together with interest, compensation and costs.

3.         The Insurance Company resisted the case.  While admitting issuance of policy, it alleged that there was no liability on its part to pay compensation.  In fact a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss.  It further mentioned that the compound wall was not covered under the terms of the policy.  Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

4.         The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9.  The Insurance Company did not file any documents, however filed affidavit evidence of its officer.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the compound wall which was damaged would be part of the building, and therefore, it was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, and therefore, directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,80,000/- towards damage of the compound wall together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the compound wall that was damaged in the rain and thunderstorm was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy, and therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation and therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the Insurance Company insured the hotel building of the complainant under Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy for the