Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member:
1. Though the appeal was posted for orders on 25.11.2002 Counsel of the appellant was not present. Hence it was posted for dismissal on 3.12.2002. As the Counsel was not present on that day also the appeal was reserved for orders.
2. This appeal is filed by the opposite party in O.P. No. 442/1997, District Forum, Guntur. The complainant is a handicapped girl. She got telephone booth sanctioned by the Telephone Department which was located next to Sri Durga Medical and Fancy Stores, Cherukupalli. The Telephone Booth consisted of a receiver, phone and computer. Those being costly items they were insured with the opposite party on 8.7.1997 vide policy bearing No. 550507/44/97/60/00024. The validity of the policy is from 8.7.1997 to 7.7.1998 and the only premium paid was Rs. 590/-. The risk covered under the policy was Rs. 28,000/- . As the Telephone Booth was located in the Varanda of the medical shop with the approval of the respondent Insurance Company all the insured items were kept in the medical shop during the night times. However, on the night of 17.8.1997 theft was committed in the medical shop and along with various articles in the medical shop her telephone booth articles were also stolen. A complaint was lodged by the owner of the medical shop to the police. But the property could not be traced. The complainant, therefore, requested the opposite party to settle the claim which was repudiated on the ground that police did not submit final report about the investigation of the case, hence the claim was treated as pre-matured and that the goods were not kept in the premises insured and they were kept in the medical shop adjacent to the insured premises. Hence, there could not be any claim. Aggrieved by this the complaint was filed.
3. The opposite party contested the claim. They contended that on receipt of the claim they appointed a Surveyor who investigated the case and also premises and assessed the loss at Rs. 17,000/-. They denied that the equipments were kept in the medical shop with their approval. Since the police also had not completed the investigation they were justified in repudiating the claim.
The District Forum after going through the documents and hearing the arguments directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 17,000/- at 12 per cent interest.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit and also two third party affidavits and marked Exs. A1 to A7. The opposite party filed its version and also an affidavit of the Administrative Officer, but did not file any document.
5. The point to be considered here is, whether the items insured were covered by the policy or whether the repudiation valid ?
6. The complainant has filed the policy dated 8.7.1997 which shows that she insured the following items :
(1) Factel Call Monitor
(2) BPL Phone
(3) PACIFIC Make 350 VLT. Inverter
(4) BPL Phone No. 2790
and the address given is that of Durga Medical Shop, Dr. No. 11-24D, Main Road, Cherukupalli. Hence as claimed by the complainant the Telephone Booth was part of the medical shop and the door number was the same as the medical shop. Hence there is no hesitation in accepting the conclusion of the District Forum that the equipments were kept in the medical shop in the right times as it was the safer place having the same door number. The next question is, whether the Surveyor assessed the loss, and if so, how much was awarded by him. Since there was no dispute about the theft and the loss of goods, the opposite party has not stated anywhere that the goods were recovered, on the other hand stated that the loss assessed by the Surveyor was Rs. 17,000/-. They have not filed the survey report. However they have admitted that the loss assessed by the Surveyor was Rs. 17,000/- but the case was closed as no claim since the police report that the goods were not recovered was not filed. It shows clear deficiency because in such case they could have kept it pending till the police filed its final investigation report that the goods could not be traced, but should not have closed the claim as no claim. The purpose of allotting a telephone booth to physically handicapped persons is for the purpose of eking out livelihood and lead a life of dignity without depending on others. Since the booth was attached to the medical shop and the goods were kept in the same premises we have no hesitation in agreeing with the findings of the District Forum that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The appeal, therefore, is rejected and the order of the District Forum is upheld.
As per our order dated 18.1.1999 in FA.IA. No. 1332/1998 the appellant had deposited a pay order for Rs. 17,340/- on 5.1.1999. The respondent is free to withdraw the amount along with any interest that would have accumulated in the mean time. The appellant will also pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- for the appeal.
Time for compliance six weeks.
Appeal dismissed.